Clinical features of endophthalmitis clusters after cataract surgery and practical recommendations to mitigate risk: systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".