ArticleBMC ophthalmology2023
A comparative study on two methods of ocular surface microbial sampling.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- From Health to Disease: A Comprehensive Review of Ocular Surface Microbiota and Detection Methods in Dry Eye.Current microbiology · 2026Review
- Aerosolization ocular surface microorganisms accumulation effect during non-contact tonometer measurements.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the effect of traditional conjunctival sac swab sampling (A) with aerosolization ocular surface microorganism sampling (B),a novel microbial sampling method, in detecting ocular microbial infection.
methodsThe study included 61 participants (122 eyes) enrolled at the Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University from December, 2021 to March, 2023. Each eye of the participants underwent sampling first with method A then B.Before aerosolization sampling, the air environment was disinfected and sampled as blank air control sample. Subsequently, the air pulses impinging the ocular surface causes dehiscence of the tear film covering the ocular surface and aerosols are formed.The microorganisms from the ocular surface attach to the aerosols generated as aerosolization ocular surface microorganism and be sampled as subject sample by bio-aerosol sampler.The samples were collected and incubated at 25℃ for 3-5 days and 37℃ for 24-48 h.The colonies were counted and identified by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry.
resultsThe accuracy in Group B was higher than that in Group A (45.8% vs. 38.3%, P = 0.289). There was a slight level of agreement between the results from both the sampling methods (k = 0.031, P = 0.730). The sensitivity in Group B was higher than that in Group A (57.1% vs. 35.7%, P = 0.453). The specificity results in Group B was higher than that in Group A (44.3% vs. 38.7%, P = 0.480). There were 12 and 37 types of microbes detected in Groups A and B, respectively.
conclusionsCompared with traditional swab sampling, the novel aerosolization sampling method shows higher accuracy and more comprehensive detection of microbes; however, it cannot completely replace swab sampling. The novel method can be a novel conducive strategy and supplement swab sampling to auxiliary diagnose ocular surface infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.