Incidence and Visual Outcomes of Endophthalmitis After Intravitreal Injection of Dexamethasone Implant vs Ranibizumab
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the incidence and visual outcomes of endophthalmitis after injection of an intravitreal dexamethasone implant and injection of intravitreal ranibizumab. Methods: This retrospective cohort study assessed endophthalmitis in eyes receiving an intravitreal injection of a 0.7 mg dexamethasone implant (DEX group), 0.5 mg ranibizumab (R5 group), or 0.3 mg ranibizumab (R3 group) between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018, at 2 large retina practices in the United States. Results: Suspected endophthalmitis occurred in 5 eyes after 4973 DEX injections, 43 eyes after 163 974 R5 injections, and 6 eyes after 18 954 R3 injections. Suspected endophthalmitis was significantly more common in the DEX group (1/995) than in the R5 group (1/3813) ( P = .008) but not than in the R3 group (1/3159) ( P = .10). Visual acuity outcomes were similar in the 3 groups. Conclusions: Suspected endophthalmitis might be more common after 0.7 mg dexamethasone injections than after 0.5 mg ranibizumab injections. Culture-positive endophthalmitis rates were similar across all 3 medications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".