↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The value of corneoscleral rim cultures in keratoplasty: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
The value of corneoscleral rim cultures in keratoplasty: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, August 2017
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s139949
Pubmed ID
Authors

Efstathia Kiatos, James J Armstrong, Cindy ML Hutnik, Stephen M Tsioros, Monali S Malvankar-Mehta, William G Hodge

Abstract

This study evaluated the performance of donor corneoscleral rim cultures for predicting infection after corneal transplantation, and determines if there is a correlation between positive corneoscleral rim cultures and postkeratoplasty infection. This was a systematic review, prognostic accuracy analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis. Databases searched were: Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and BioSis Previews. Grey literature was also explored. A systematic review was conducted to locate published and unpublished studies. All studies examining corneal button contamination and its association with endophthalmitis and keratitis posttransplantation were included. Extracted data were used to calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Cost data from the London Laboratory Services Group in London, ON were used to calculate the cost-effectiveness of culturing donor rim cultures. Of 7,870 grafts, 954 had a positive rim culture (12.1%), with 12 patients going on to develop keratitis or endophthalmitis (1.3%). The prevalence of keratitis and endophthalmitis in this study was 0.15%, and the positive predictive value 1.5%. Of the 12 infections, nine were fungal and three bacterial. The estimated cost of a positive and negative test result was CAD$45.99 and $14.15, respectively. The cost to run all 7,870 tests was estimated to be $141,735.86, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $40,215.70. There was a significant divergence between bacterial and fungal rim-culture results. Bacterial cultures predicted clinical infection poorly, did not change management, and were expensive. Fungal cultures predicted clinical infection in over 10% of patients, had the potential to change management, and were 40% less expensive than full rim culturing (bacterial and fungal tests). Fungal rim cultures may be considered in areas where fungal infection rates are high.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 15%
Student > Master 4 12%
Professor 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 8 24%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 42%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Decision Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 12 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2017.
All research outputs
#17,451,209
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#329
of 524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,330
of 328,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 524 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,070 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.