Povidone-iodine in the treatment of infectious keratitis: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate if povidone-iodine (PI) is effective and safe in the treatment of infectious keratitis. Design Systematic review Methods A systematic review of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was conducted to find relevant published articles. Outcomes including best corrected visual acuity, infiltrate, ulcer size and colony forming units (CFUs) were collected. All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies published in English were included. Results A total of 221 articles were identified. After screening of titles and abstracts, 15 articles underwent full-text review. Three RCTs, one cohort and four case reports met the inclusion criteria. In one study, PI was shown to be an effective treatment in reducing infiltrate and ulcer size while waiting for culture results. Another study found no significant difference between PI and antibiotic treatment in achieving recovery and presumed cure. However, two other studies reported that PI did not significantly reduce CFU or improve visual outcomes when added to standard antibiotic treatment. None of the studies reported any safety concerns with topical PI. Conclusions Some studies suggest that PI may have potential benefits in the management of infectious keratitis, while others found no significant differences relative to placebo or when added to topical antibiotic treatment. . The current evidence is limited by small sample sizes and heterogeneity in study design, populations, outcome measures, and PI concentrations. RCTs with a larger sample size, and standardized PI concentrations, durations, and outcome measures are recommended to confirm the efficacy of PI in the treatment of infectious keratitis.
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 | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".