Search

IntroductionThere is evidence for increased resistance against the antimicrobials used to treat keratitis. This review aims to provide global and regional prevalence estimates of antimicrobial resistance in corneal isolates and the range of minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) with their associated resistance breakpoints.Methods and analysisWe report this protocol following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. We will conduct an electronic bibliographic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Eligible studies will report in any language data for the resistance or MIC for antimicrobials against bacterial, fungal or amoebic organisms isolated from suspected microbial keratitis. Studies that only report on viral keratitis will not be included. There will be no time restrictions on the date of publication. Screening for eligible studies, assessment of risk of bias and data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers independently, using predefined inclusion criteria and prepiloted data extraction forms. We will resolve disagreements between the reviewers by discussion and, if required, a third (senior) reviewer will arbitrate. We will assess the risk of bias using a tool validated in prevalence studies. The certainty of the evidence will be assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Pooled proportion estimates will be calculated using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I2statistic. We will explore differences between Global Burden of Disease regions and temporal trends.Ethics approval and disseminationEthics approval is not required as this is a protocol for a systematic review of published data. The findings of this review will be published in an open-access, peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42023331126.

IntroductionGathering data on socioeconomic status (SES) is a prerequisite for any health programme that aims to assess and improve the equitable distribution of its outcomes. Many different modalities can be used to collect SES data, ranging from (1) face-to-face elicitation, to (2) telephone-administered questionnaires, to (3) automated text message-based systems. The relative costs and perceived benefits to patients and providers of these different data collection approaches is unknown. This protocol is for a systematic review that aims to compare the resource requirements, performance characteristics, and acceptability to participants and service providers of these three approaches to collect SES data from those enrolled in health programmes.Methods and analysisAn information specialist will conduct searches on the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP and OpenGrey. All databases will be searched from 1999 to present with no language limits used. We will also search Google Scholar and check the reference lists of relevant articles for further potentially eligible studies. Any empirical study design will be eligible if it compares two or more modalities to elicit SES data from the following three; in-person, voice call, or automated phone-based systems. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles; and complete data extraction. For each study, we will extract data on the modality characteristics, primary outcomes (response rate and equivalence) and secondary outcomes (time, costs and acceptability to patients and providers). We will synthesise findings thematically without meta-analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required, as our review will include published and publicly accessible data. This review is part of a project to improve equitable access to eye care services in low-ioncome and middle-income countries. However, the findings will be useful to policy-makers and programme managers in a range of health settings and non-health settings. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and develop an accessible summary of results for website posting and stakeholder meetings.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021251959.

IntroductionFungal infections of the cornea, fungal keratitis (FK), are challenging to treat. Current topical antifungals are not always effective and are often unavailable, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries where most cases occur. Topical natamycin 5% is usually first-line treatment, however, even when treated intensively, infections may progress to perforation of the eye in around a quarter of cases. Alternative antifungal medications are needed to treat this blinding disease.Chlorhexidine is an antiseptic agent with antibacterial and antifungal properties. Previous pilot studies suggest that topical chlorhexidine 0.2% compares favourably with topical natamycin. Full-scale randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of topical chlorhexidine 0.2% are warranted to answer this question definitively.Methods and analysisWe will test the hypothesis that topical chlorhexidine 0.2% is non-inferior to topical natamycin 5% in a two-arm, single-masked RCT. Participants are adults with FK presenting to a tertiary ophthalmic hospital in Nepal. Baseline assessment includes history, examination, photography, in vivo confocal microscopy and cornea scrapes for microbiology. Participants will be randomised to alternative topical antifungal treatments (topical chlorhexidine 0.2% and topical natamycin 5%; 1:1 ratio, 2–6 random block size). Patients are reviewed at day 2, day 7 (with reculture), day 14, day 21, month 2 and month 3. The primary outcome is the best spectacle corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) at 3 months. Primary analysis (intention to treat) will be by linear regression, with treatment arm and baseline BSCVA prespecified covariates. Secondary outcomes include epithelial healing time, scar/infiltrate size, ulcer depth, hypopyon size, perforation and/or therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty (corneal transplant), positive reculture rate (day 7) and quality of life (EuroQol-5 dimensions, WHO/PBD-VF20, WHOQOL-BREF).Ethics and disseminationThe Nepal Health Research Council, the Nepal Department of Drug Administration and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine ethics committee have approved the trial. The results will be presented at local and international meetings and submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication.Trial registration numberISRCTN14332621; pre-results.

ObjectiveTo estimate the association between (1) visual impairment (VI) and (2) eye disease and 6-year mortality risk within a cohort of elderly Kenyan people.Design, setting and participantsThe baseline of the Nakuru Posterior Segment Eye Disease Study was formed from a population-based survey of 4318 participants aged ≥50 years, enrolled in 2007–2008. Ophthalmic and anthropometric examinations were undertaken on all participants at baseline, and a questionnaire was administered, including medical and ophthalmic history. Participants were retraced in 2013–2014 for a second examination. Vital status was recorded for all participants through information from community members. Cumulative incidence of mortality, and its relationship with baseline VI and types of eye disease was estimated. Inverse probability weighting was used to adjust for non-participation.Primary outcome measuresCumulative incidence of mortality in relation to VI level at baseline.ResultsOf the baseline sample, 2170 (50%) were re-examined at follow-up and 407 (10%) were known to have died (adjusted risk of 11.9% over 6 years). Compared to those with normal vision (visual acuity (VA) ≥6/12, risk=9.7%), the 6-year mortality risk was higher among people with VI (ConclusionsVisual acuity was related to 6-year mortality risk in this cohort of elderly Kenyan people, potentially because both VI and mortality are related to ageing and risk factors for NCD.