Predicting factors and prediction model for discriminating between fungal infection and bacterial infection in severe microbial keratitis
A retrospective medical record review including 344 patients who were admitted with severe microbial keratitis at Ramathibodi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, from January 2010 to December 2016 was conducted. Causative organisms were identified in 136 patients based on positive culture results, patholog...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2019-03, Vol.14 (3), p.e0214076-e0214076 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e0214076 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | e0214076 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 14 |
creator | Jongkhajornpong, Passara Nimworaphan, Jirat Lekhanont, Kaevalin Chuckpaiwong, Varintorn Rattanasiri, Sasivimol |
description | A retrospective medical record review including 344 patients who were admitted with severe microbial keratitis at Ramathibodi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, from January 2010 to December 2016 was conducted. Causative organisms were identified in 136 patients based on positive culture results, pathological reports and confocal microscopy findings. Eighty-six eyes (63.24%) were bacterial keratitis, while 50 eyes (36.76%) were fungal keratitis. Demographics, clinical history, and clinical findings from slit-lamp examinations were collected. We found statistically significant differences between fungal and bacterial infections in terms of age, occupation, contact lens use, underlying ocular surface diseases, previous ocular surgery, referral status, and duration since onset (p < 0.05). For clinical features, depth of lesions, feathery edge, satellite lesions and presence of endothelial plaque were significantly higher in fungal infection compared to bacterial infection with odds ratios of 2.97 (95%CI 1.43-6.15), 3.92 (95%CI 1.62-9.45), 6.27 (95%CI 2.26-17.41) and 8.00 (95%CI 3.45-18.59), respectively. After multivariate analysis of all factors, there were 7 factors including occupation, history of trauma, duration since onset, depth of lesion, satellite lesions, endothelial plaque and stromal melting that showed statistical significance at p < 0.05. We constructed the prediction model based on these 7 identified factors. The model demonstrated a favorable receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC = 0.79, 95%CI 0.72-0.86) with correct classification, sensitivity and specificity of 81.48%, 70% and 88.24%, respectively at the optimal cut-off point. In conclusion, we propose potential prediction factors and prediction model as an adjunctive tool for clinicians to rapidly differentiate fungal infection from bacterial infection in severe microbial keratitis patients. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0214076 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2195359847</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A579457424</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_96da4e900edc47a98f9bca5a4b8b2188</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A579457424</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-94d5a0c8b8166f3112efda4b6d9b5dc30ca22f751599f7f0b4b44e6619f46093</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk9tu1DAQhiMEou3CGyCIhITgYhef4sQ3SFXFYaVKRVBxaznOeNdL1t7aSSmPwFvjdNNqg3qBcuFo_M0_9vyeLHuB0QLTEr_f-D441S523sECEcxQyR9lx1hQMucE0ccH_0fZSYwbhApacf40O6KoEpSW9Dj78zVAY3Vn3So3Snc-xFy5Jt-NYe_yrW-gzY0PeWOjDnZrnbrla-h-Abjc9G6l2tw6A_uMQaBOYhDsJG5dHuEaAuRbq4Ovh92fEJJaZ-Oz7IlRbYTn4zrLLj99vDz7Mj-_-Lw8Oz2fay5INxesKRTSVV1hzg3FmIBpFKt5I-qi0RRpRYgpC1wIYUqDalYzBpxjYRhHgs6yV3vZXeujHJsYJcGioIWoWJmI5Z5ovNrIXbqwCr-lV1beBnxYSRU6q1uQgqfSIBCCRrNSicqIWqsiHaeqCa6qpPVhrNbX2wSB64JqJ6LTHWfXcuWvJWeEE4ySwNtRIPirHmInt8kEaFvlwPf7cxNeiWTnLHv9D_rw7UYqWQYyeeNTXT2IytOiFKwoGWGJWjxApa-BZF16ccam-CTh3SQhMR3cdCvVxyiX37_9P3vxY8q-OWDXoNpuHX3bD-8pTkG2B9PDijGAuW8yRnIYmLtuyGFg5DgwKe3loUH3SXcTQv8CfoITrw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2195359847</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Predicting factors and prediction model for discriminating between fungal infection and bacterial infection in severe microbial keratitis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Jongkhajornpong, Passara ; Nimworaphan, Jirat ; Lekhanont, Kaevalin ; Chuckpaiwong, Varintorn ; Rattanasiri, Sasivimol</creator><contributor>Oldenburg, Catherine E.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Jongkhajornpong, Passara ; Nimworaphan, Jirat ; Lekhanont, Kaevalin ; Chuckpaiwong, Varintorn ; Rattanasiri, Sasivimol ; Oldenburg, Catherine E.</creatorcontrib><description>A retrospective medical record review including 344 patients who were admitted with severe microbial keratitis at Ramathibodi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, from January 2010 to December 2016 was conducted. Causative organisms were identified in 136 patients based on positive culture results, pathological reports and confocal microscopy findings. Eighty-six eyes (63.24%) were bacterial keratitis, while 50 eyes (36.76%) were fungal keratitis. Demographics, clinical history, and clinical findings from slit-lamp examinations were collected. We found statistically significant differences between fungal and bacterial infections in terms of age, occupation, contact lens use, underlying ocular surface diseases, previous ocular surgery, referral status, and duration since onset (p < 0.05). For clinical features, depth of lesions, feathery edge, satellite lesions and presence of endothelial plaque were significantly higher in fungal infection compared to bacterial infection with odds ratios of 2.97 (95%CI 1.43-6.15), 3.92 (95%CI 1.62-9.45), 6.27 (95%CI 2.26-17.41) and 8.00 (95%CI 3.45-18.59), respectively. After multivariate analysis of all factors, there were 7 factors including occupation, history of trauma, duration since onset, depth of lesion, satellite lesions, endothelial plaque and stromal melting that showed statistical significance at p < 0.05. We constructed the prediction model based on these 7 identified factors. The model demonstrated a favorable receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC = 0.79, 95%CI 0.72-0.86) with correct classification, sensitivity and specificity of 81.48%, 70% and 88.24%, respectively at the optimal cut-off point. In conclusion, we propose potential prediction factors and prediction model as an adjunctive tool for clinicians to rapidly differentiate fungal infection from bacterial infection in severe microbial keratitis patients.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214076</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30893373</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Analysis ; Antifungal agents ; Bacteria ; Bacterial infections ; Bacterial Infections - epidemiology ; Bacterial Infections - microbiology ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Confocal microscopy ; Contact lenses ; Demographics ; Demography ; Endothelium ; Epidemiology ; Eye (anatomy) ; Eye diseases ; Female ; Fungal infections ; Fungi ; Health aspects ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Infection ; Infections ; Keratitis ; Keratitis - epidemiology ; Keratitis - microbiology ; Lesions ; Male ; Mathematical models ; Medical records ; Medical research ; Medicine ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Methenamine ; Microorganisms ; Microscopy ; Middle Aged ; Models, Biological ; Multivariate analysis ; Mycoses - epidemiology ; Mycoses - microbiology ; Occupations ; Patients ; Physical Sciences ; Prediction models ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Retrospective Studies ; Statistical analysis ; Statistical significance ; Surgery ; Trauma</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2019-03, Vol.14 (3), p.e0214076-e0214076</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2019 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2019 Jongkhajornpong et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2019 Jongkhajornpong et al 2019 Jongkhajornpong et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-94d5a0c8b8166f3112efda4b6d9b5dc30ca22f751599f7f0b4b44e6619f46093</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-94d5a0c8b8166f3112efda4b6d9b5dc30ca22f751599f7f0b4b44e6619f46093</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8203-2353</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6426210/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6426210/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,729,782,786,866,887,2104,2930,23873,27931,27932,53798,53800</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30893373$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Oldenburg, Catherine E.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Jongkhajornpong, Passara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nimworaphan, Jirat</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lekhanont, Kaevalin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chuckpaiwong, Varintorn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rattanasiri, Sasivimol</creatorcontrib><title>Predicting factors and prediction model for discriminating between fungal infection and bacterial infection in severe microbial keratitis</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>A retrospective medical record review including 344 patients who were admitted with severe microbial keratitis at Ramathibodi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, from January 2010 to December 2016 was conducted. Causative organisms were identified in 136 patients based on positive culture results, pathological reports and confocal microscopy findings. Eighty-six eyes (63.24%) were bacterial keratitis, while 50 eyes (36.76%) were fungal keratitis. Demographics, clinical history, and clinical findings from slit-lamp examinations were collected. We found statistically significant differences between fungal and bacterial infections in terms of age, occupation, contact lens use, underlying ocular surface diseases, previous ocular surgery, referral status, and duration since onset (p < 0.05). For clinical features, depth of lesions, feathery edge, satellite lesions and presence of endothelial plaque were significantly higher in fungal infection compared to bacterial infection with odds ratios of 2.97 (95%CI 1.43-6.15), 3.92 (95%CI 1.62-9.45), 6.27 (95%CI 2.26-17.41) and 8.00 (95%CI 3.45-18.59), respectively. After multivariate analysis of all factors, there were 7 factors including occupation, history of trauma, duration since onset, depth of lesion, satellite lesions, endothelial plaque and stromal melting that showed statistical significance at p < 0.05. We constructed the prediction model based on these 7 identified factors. The model demonstrated a favorable receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC = 0.79, 95%CI 0.72-0.86) with correct classification, sensitivity and specificity of 81.48%, 70% and 88.24%, respectively at the optimal cut-off point. In conclusion, we propose potential prediction factors and prediction model as an adjunctive tool for clinicians to rapidly differentiate fungal infection from bacterial infection in severe microbial keratitis patients.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Antifungal agents</subject><subject>Bacteria</subject><subject>Bacterial infections</subject><subject>Bacterial Infections - epidemiology</subject><subject>Bacterial Infections - microbiology</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>Confocal microscopy</subject><subject>Contact lenses</subject><subject>Demographics</subject><subject>Demography</subject><subject>Endothelium</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Eye (anatomy)</subject><subject>Eye diseases</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fungal infections</subject><subject>Fungi</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infection</subject><subject>Infections</subject><subject>Keratitis</subject><subject>Keratitis - epidemiology</subject><subject>Keratitis - microbiology</subject><subject>Lesions</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Medical records</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Methenamine</subject><subject>Microorganisms</subject><subject>Microscopy</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Models, Biological</subject><subject>Multivariate analysis</subject><subject>Mycoses - epidemiology</subject><subject>Mycoses - microbiology</subject><subject>Occupations</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Prediction models</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Statistical significance</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Trauma</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk9tu1DAQhiMEou3CGyCIhITgYhef4sQ3SFXFYaVKRVBxaznOeNdL1t7aSSmPwFvjdNNqg3qBcuFo_M0_9vyeLHuB0QLTEr_f-D441S523sECEcxQyR9lx1hQMucE0ccH_0fZSYwbhApacf40O6KoEpSW9Dj78zVAY3Vn3So3Snc-xFy5Jt-NYe_yrW-gzY0PeWOjDnZrnbrla-h-Abjc9G6l2tw6A_uMQaBOYhDsJG5dHuEaAuRbq4Ovh92fEJJaZ-Oz7IlRbYTn4zrLLj99vDz7Mj-_-Lw8Oz2fay5INxesKRTSVV1hzg3FmIBpFKt5I-qi0RRpRYgpC1wIYUqDalYzBpxjYRhHgs6yV3vZXeujHJsYJcGioIWoWJmI5Z5ovNrIXbqwCr-lV1beBnxYSRU6q1uQgqfSIBCCRrNSicqIWqsiHaeqCa6qpPVhrNbX2wSB64JqJ6LTHWfXcuWvJWeEE4ySwNtRIPirHmInt8kEaFvlwPf7cxNeiWTnLHv9D_rw7UYqWQYyeeNTXT2IytOiFKwoGWGJWjxApa-BZF16ccam-CTh3SQhMR3cdCvVxyiX37_9P3vxY8q-OWDXoNpuHX3bD-8pTkG2B9PDijGAuW8yRnIYmLtuyGFg5DgwKe3loUH3SXcTQv8CfoITrw</recordid><startdate>20190320</startdate><enddate>20190320</enddate><creator>Jongkhajornpong, Passara</creator><creator>Nimworaphan, Jirat</creator><creator>Lekhanont, Kaevalin</creator><creator>Chuckpaiwong, Varintorn</creator><creator>Rattanasiri, Sasivimol</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8203-2353</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190320</creationdate><title>Predicting factors and prediction model for discriminating between fungal infection and bacterial infection in severe microbial keratitis</title><author>Jongkhajornpong, Passara ; Nimworaphan, Jirat ; Lekhanont, Kaevalin ; Chuckpaiwong, Varintorn ; Rattanasiri, Sasivimol</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-94d5a0c8b8166f3112efda4b6d9b5dc30ca22f751599f7f0b4b44e6619f46093</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Antifungal agents</topic><topic>Bacteria</topic><topic>Bacterial infections</topic><topic>Bacterial Infections - epidemiology</topic><topic>Bacterial Infections - microbiology</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>Confocal microscopy</topic><topic>Contact lenses</topic><topic>Demographics</topic><topic>Demography</topic><topic>Endothelium</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Eye (anatomy)</topic><topic>Eye diseases</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fungal infections</topic><topic>Fungi</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infection</topic><topic>Infections</topic><topic>Keratitis</topic><topic>Keratitis - epidemiology</topic><topic>Keratitis - microbiology</topic><topic>Lesions</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Medical records</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Methenamine</topic><topic>Microorganisms</topic><topic>Microscopy</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Models, Biological</topic><topic>Multivariate analysis</topic><topic>Mycoses - epidemiology</topic><topic>Mycoses - microbiology</topic><topic>Occupations</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Prediction models</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Statistical significance</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Trauma</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jongkhajornpong, Passara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nimworaphan, Jirat</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lekhanont, Kaevalin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chuckpaiwong, Varintorn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rattanasiri, Sasivimol</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jongkhajornpong, Passara</au><au>Nimworaphan, Jirat</au><au>Lekhanont, Kaevalin</au><au>Chuckpaiwong, Varintorn</au><au>Rattanasiri, Sasivimol</au><au>Oldenburg, Catherine E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Predicting factors and prediction model for discriminating between fungal infection and bacterial infection in severe microbial keratitis</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2019-03-20</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>e0214076</spage><epage>e0214076</epage><pages>e0214076-e0214076</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>A retrospective medical record review including 344 patients who were admitted with severe microbial keratitis at Ramathibodi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, from January 2010 to December 2016 was conducted. Causative organisms were identified in 136 patients based on positive culture results, pathological reports and confocal microscopy findings. Eighty-six eyes (63.24%) were bacterial keratitis, while 50 eyes (36.76%) were fungal keratitis. Demographics, clinical history, and clinical findings from slit-lamp examinations were collected. We found statistically significant differences between fungal and bacterial infections in terms of age, occupation, contact lens use, underlying ocular surface diseases, previous ocular surgery, referral status, and duration since onset (p < 0.05). For clinical features, depth of lesions, feathery edge, satellite lesions and presence of endothelial plaque were significantly higher in fungal infection compared to bacterial infection with odds ratios of 2.97 (95%CI 1.43-6.15), 3.92 (95%CI 1.62-9.45), 6.27 (95%CI 2.26-17.41) and 8.00 (95%CI 3.45-18.59), respectively. After multivariate analysis of all factors, there were 7 factors including occupation, history of trauma, duration since onset, depth of lesion, satellite lesions, endothelial plaque and stromal melting that showed statistical significance at p < 0.05. We constructed the prediction model based on these 7 identified factors. The model demonstrated a favorable receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC = 0.79, 95%CI 0.72-0.86) with correct classification, sensitivity and specificity of 81.48%, 70% and 88.24%, respectively at the optimal cut-off point. In conclusion, we propose potential prediction factors and prediction model as an adjunctive tool for clinicians to rapidly differentiate fungal infection from bacterial infection in severe microbial keratitis patients.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>30893373</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0214076</doi><tpages>e0214076</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8203-2353</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2019-03, Vol.14 (3), p.e0214076-e0214076 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2195359847 |
source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
subjects | Adolescent Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Analysis Antifungal agents Bacteria Bacterial infections Bacterial Infections - epidemiology Bacterial Infections - microbiology Biology and Life Sciences Child Child, Preschool Confocal microscopy Contact lenses Demographics Demography Endothelium Epidemiology Eye (anatomy) Eye diseases Female Fungal infections Fungi Health aspects Hospitals Humans Infection Infections Keratitis Keratitis - epidemiology Keratitis - microbiology Lesions Male Mathematical models Medical records Medical research Medicine Medicine and Health Sciences Methenamine Microorganisms Microscopy Middle Aged Models, Biological Multivariate analysis Mycoses - epidemiology Mycoses - microbiology Occupations Patients Physical Sciences Prediction models Research and Analysis Methods Retrospective Studies Statistical analysis Statistical significance Surgery Trauma |
title | Predicting factors and prediction model for discriminating between fungal infection and bacterial infection in severe microbial keratitis |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-04T12%3A46%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Predicting%20factors%20and%20prediction%20model%20for%20discriminating%20between%20fungal%20infection%20and%20bacterial%20infection%20in%20severe%20microbial%20keratitis&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Jongkhajornpong,%20Passara&rft.date=2019-03-20&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=e0214076&rft.epage=e0214076&rft.pages=e0214076-e0214076&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0214076&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA579457424%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2195359847&rft_id=info:pmid/30893373&rft_galeid=A579457424&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_96da4e900edc47a98f9bca5a4b8b2188&rfr_iscdi=true |