BackgroundIdentification of bacterial pathogens in endophthalmitis is important to inform antibiotic selection and treatment decisions. Hemoculture bottles and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis have been proposed to offer good detection sensitivity. This study compared the sensitivity and accuracy of a blood culture system, a PCR approach, and conventional culture methods for identification of causative bacteria in cases of acute endophthalmitis.MethodsTwenty-nine patients with a diagnosis of presumed acute bacterial endophthalmitis who underwent vitreous specimen collection at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital were enrolled in this study. Forty-one specimens were collected. Each specimen was divided into three parts, and each part was analyzed using one of three microbial identification techniques: conventional plate culture, blood culture, and polymerase chain reaction and sequencing. The results of the three methods were then compared.ResultsBacteria were identified in 15 of the 41 specimens (36.5%). Five (12.2%) specimens were positive by conventional culture methods, 11 (26.8%) were positive by hemoculture, and 11 (26.8%) were positive by PCR. Cohen’s kappa analysis revealed p-values for conventional methods vs. hemoculture, conventional methods vs. PCR, and hemoculture vs. PCR of 0.057, 0.33, and 0.009, respectively. Higher detection rates of Enterococcus faecalis were observed for hemoculture and PCR than for conventional methods.ConclusionsBlood culture bottles and PCR detection may facilitate bacterial identification in cases of presumed acute endophthalmitis. These techniques should be used in addition to conventional plate culture methods because they provide a greater degree of sensitivity than conventional plate culture alone for the detection of specific microorganisms such as E. faecalis.
Trial registrationThai Clinical Trial Register No. TCTR20110000024.
Objective: To identify the cause of excessive blinking in apparently healthy children, and to evaluate its association with visual activities including visual display terminal use.
Material and Methods: The present study was a descriptive cross-sectional case-control study included 200 children aged 6 to 14 years with chief complaints of excessive blinking (study group) and routine eye check-up visits (control group). All participants underwent a complete eye examination including blink rate and tear break-up time measurement. Parents were asked to answer questionnaires regarding tic disorder and duration of visual activities.
Results: One hundred children in the study group (mean age 7.9±2.0 years) and 100 children in the control group (mean age 9.5±2.3 years) were enrolled. Participants in the study group were predominantly male (77% versus 44%) and had a higher blink rate (30 versus 9 blinks/minute) compared to the control group. In the study group, there was a significantly higher percentage of participants diagnosed with dry eyes (73% versus 6%, p<0.001), allergic conjunctivitis (41% versus 0%, p<0.001) and tic disorder (19% versus 9%, p 0.042) than in the control group. One third of the participants in the study group had mixed diagnoses of dry eyes and allergic conjunctivitis. There was no significant difference in the duration of visual activities including visual display terminal use between groups.
Conclusion: Excessive blinking occurred more commonly in boys. The most common associated disorders with excessive blinking in children were dry eyes, followed by allergic conjunctivitis and tic disorder. There was no association between excessive blinking in children and duration of visual display terminal use.
Keywords: Blinking; Excessive blinking; Dry eyes; Visual display terminal
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.