MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical features of endophthalmitis clusters after cataract surgery and practical recommendations to mitigate risk: systematic review

2021· review· en· W3198980143 on OpenAlexaff
Jeff Park, Marko M. Popovic, Michael Balas, Sherif El-Defrawy, Ravin Alaei, Peter J. Kertes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsKensington HealthMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoNorth Toronto Eye CareSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndophthalmitisMedicineCataract surgeryTransmission (telecommunications)PathogenOphthalmologyDiabetes mellitusSurgeryImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intraocular transmission of exogenous pathogens in cataract surgery can lead to endophthalmitis. This review evaluates the features of endophthalmitis clusters secondary to pathogen transmission in cataract surgery. Articles reporting on pathogen transmission in cataract surgery were identified via searches of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL, and a total of 268 eyes from 24 studies were included. The most common source of infectious transmission was attributed to a contaminated intraocular solution (ie, irrigation solution, viscoelastic, or diluted antibiotic; n = 10). Visual acuity at presentation with infectious features was 1.89 logMAR (range: 1.35 to 2.58; ∼counting fingers) and 1.33 logMAR (range: 0.04 to 3.00; Snellen: ∼20/430) at last follow-up. Patients with diabetes had worse outcomes compared with patients without diabetes. The most frequently isolated pathogen from the infectious sources was Pseudomonas sp. (50.0%). This review highlights the various routes of pathogen transmission during cataract surgery and summarizes recommendations for the detection, prevention, and management of endophthalmitis clusters.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.370 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cataract & Refractive SurgerySame topicOcular Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207