Next Article in Journal
Detection of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infections Using Molecular Methods
Next Article in Special Issue
Comparative Study of Ocular Pharmacokinetics of Topical 0.3% Gatifloxacin Eye Gel and Solution in Rabbits
Previous Article in Journal
Antibiotic Exposure, Common Morbidities and Main Intestinal Microbial Groups in Very Preterm Neonates: A Pilot Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 11
Issue 2
10.3390/antibiotics11020238
antibiotics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Pathogens and Antibiotic Susceptibilities of Global Bacterial Keratitis: A Meta-Analysis

by
Zijun Zhang
,
Kai Cao
,
Jiamin Liu
,
Zhenyu Wei
,
Xizhan Xu
and
Qingfeng Liang
*
Beijing Institute of Ophthalmology, Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Beijing 100005, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2022, 11(2), 238; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11020238
Submission received: 20 January 2022 / Revised: 8 February 2022 / Accepted: 9 February 2022 / Published: 12 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Anti-infectious Drugs in Ophthalmology)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Bacterial keratitis (BK) is the most common type of infectious keratitis. The spectrum of pathogenic bacteria and their susceptibility to antibiotics varied with the different regions. A meta-analysis was conducted to review the global culture rate, distribution, current trends, and drug susceptibility of isolates from BK over the past 20 years (2000–2020). Four databases were searched, and published date was limited between 2000 and 2020. Main key words were “bacterial keratitis”, “culture results” and “drug resistance”. Forty-two studies from twenty-one countries (35 cities) were included for meta-analysis. The overall positive culture rate was 47% (95%CI, 42–52%). Gram-positive cocci were the major type of bacteria (62%), followed by Gram-negative bacilli (30%), Gram-positive bacilli (5%), and Gram-negative cocci (5%). Staphylococcus spp. (41.4%), Pseudomonas spp. (17.0%), Streptococcus spp. (13.1%), Corynebacterium spp. (6.6%) and Moraxella spp. (4.1%) were the most common bacterial organism. The antibiotic resistance pattern analysis revealed that most Gram-positive cocci were susceptive to aminoglycoside (86%), followed by fluoroquinolone (81%) and cephalosporin (79%). Gram-negative bacilli were most sensitive to cephalosporin (96%) and fluoroquinolones (96%), followed by aminoglycoside (92%). In Gram-positive cocci, the susceptibility trends of fluoroquinolones were decreasing since 2010. Clinics should pay attention to the changing trends of pathogen distribution and their drug resistance pattern and should diagnose and choose sensitive antibiotics based on local data.

1. Introduction

Infectious keratitis (IK) is a potentially sight-threatening condition, which leads to at least 1.5 to 2 million new cases of unilateral blindness every year [1,2,3]. Among them, bacterial keratitis (BK) is the most common type according to the reports from multiple regions such as UK [4,5,6,7], North & South America [8,9,10,11], Middle East [12] and Australia [13,14]. Common risk factors for BK were contact lens wear, ocular trauma, ocular surface disease, and prior ocular surgery [15]. Bacterial culture via corneal scraping samples is still the gold standard for the diagnosis of BK, which permits isolation of the causal bacteria. However, not all medical institutions are able to carry out those tests due to various limitations. Therefore, it is critical for clinicians to make empirical diagnosis to know the pathogenic microorganism and antibiotics appropriate for eradicating the infection [16].
The common organisms that cause bacterial keratitis include Staphylococcus aureus, Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS), Streptococcus pneumoniae, and others [17,18,19,20,21]. The bacterial spectrum and drug susceptibility for bacterial isolates from different areas or periods are widely reported [5,8,18,22,23], but the most common pathogen of BK remains debatable. Pseudomonas spp. were demonstrated to be the most common pathogen in Malaysia [22], Iran [23] and Taiwan [16], while CoNS are reported to be the most common in UK [5,6,24] and Australia [13]. Due to the widespread use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, it is very likely that the bacterial spectrum and its resistance to antibiotics varies greatly over time and from area to area. However, a comprehensive worldwide and long-term data analysis is scarce. To analyze the trends of bacteria and drug resistance profile over time in the world, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the positive rate of culture in medical facilities worldwide and summarize the temporal and spatial trends of microbial isolates and their susceptibility patterns since 2000.

2. Results

2.1. Literature Search and Study Characteristics

From the selected databases, 4734 potentially relevant references were identified. In total, 1156 references were excluded because of duplicates. Details of searching and de-duplications were shown in Appendix A. Search results were shown in Appendix B by reviewing the titles and abstracts, and 3459 references were excluded. After reading 119 full texts, 16 articles were excluded, and 103 papers were assessed for eligibility. A total of 42 studies were ultimately included in this meta-analysis, of which only 38 articles contained enough information for positive rate analysis, and 33 articles for drug susceptibility analysis. We used the methodological scoring system of “rate” to assess the quality of each study. The score of all studies were more than 4 points. The paper selection process was shown in Figure 1, and the characteristics of the included studies were shown in Table 1. We used the methodological scoring system of “rate” to assess the quality of each study. The score of all studies were more than 4 points. The paper selection process was shown in Figure 1, and the characteristics of the included studies was shown in Table 1. Among these data, 16 articles were reported from Asia, 11 from America, 1 from Africa, 9 from Europe and 5 from Oceania.

2.2. Positive Rate of Culture

A total of 38,931 samples scraping from the cornea of BK patients were reviewed in the study. Among them, 14,596 samples were culture positive and positive rate of culture was 47% (95%CI, 42–52%) based on the 38 studies (Figure 2). The highest positive rate was 83% and the lowest positive rate was 21%. Data of positive rate was available among 21 countries (35 cities) in 5 continents. The highest and the lowest positive rate analyzed by counties were from Korea and from Turkey (83% vs. 28%, Figure 3, Table S1). There were no significant differences of positive culture rate among different countries (p = 0.464). Grouped by continents, the highest positive rate was 59% (95%CI, 48–68%), found in 4 articles performed in Oceania and the lowest was 40% (95%CI, 32–49%), found in 14 articles performed in Asia. However, there were no significant differences of positive culture rate between continents (p = 0.211).

2.3. Distribution of Bacteria Isolated from Corneal Lesions

Within 14,596 samples reported from 38 studies, 15,350 bacterial strains isolated from corneas of BK cases were summarized (Table 2). Gram-positive cocci were the major type of bacteria (62%, 58–67%), followed by Gram-negative bacilli (30%, 26–33%), Gram-positive bacilli (5%, 4–7%), and Gram-negative cocci (5%, 4–7%). The five most common bacterial organism detected was Staphylococcus spp. (41.4%, 36.2–46.7%), Pseudomonas spp. (17.0%, 13.9–20.7%), Streptococcus spp. (13.1%, 10.9–15.7%), Corynebacterium spp. (6.6%, 5.3–8.3%) and Moraxella spp. (4.1%, 3.1–5.4%). Figure 4 presented the increasing trends of Gram-positive cocci and the decreasing trends of Gram-negative bacilli in 1996–2015. In 2000s, the proportion of Gram-positive cocci exceeded that of Gram-negative bacilli. The upward trend of Gram-positive cocci and the downward trend of Gram-negative bacilli were both significant (z = 1.71, p = 0.04; z = −1.88, p = 0.03). At the genus level, the percentage of Pseudomonas spp. declined from 39.9% (1990s) to 12.2% (2000s) and Staphylococcus spp. rose from 25.9% (1990s) to 39.5% (2000s) (Figure 4). The upward trend of Staphylococcus spp. was significant (z = 1.71, p = 0.04) and the downward trend of Pseudomonas spp. was not significant (z = −1.22, p = 0.22).

2.4. Antibiotic Susceptibility of the Bacterial Strains Isolated from Corneal Lesions

All results of drug susceptibility tests of the strains were summarized in Figure 5. Most Gram-positive cocci were susceptible to aminoglycoside (86%, 3916 sensitive in 4527), following cephalosporin and fluoroquinolone, 79% (1997 sensitive in 2515) and 81% (3921 sensitive in 4831), separately. A resistance of macrolides was observed (57%, 212 sensitive in 375). As for Gram-negative bacilli, most isolates were susceptible to cephalosporin and fluoroquinolone (cephalosporin: 96%, 1269 sensitive in 1328; fluoroquinolone: 96%, 2519 sensitive in 2611), followed by aminoglycoside (92%, 2547 sensitive in 2783). Figure 6 shown the changing trends of susceptibility of pathogens to common drugs. In Gram-positive cocci, the susceptibility to common antibiotics such as cefazolin, gatifloxacin, moxifloxacin and ofloxacin showed a decreasing trend since 2010. For Gram-negative bacilli, a susceptibility over 90% was maintained in all recommended antibiotics [24] in recent years.

3. Discussion

Bacterial keratitis is the second most common cause of legal blindness worldwide [25]. Although broad-spectrum antibiotics, such as levofloxacin, have always been used to control BK, more targeted treatment was required to improve the clinical outcomes [26]. However, the spectrum of pathogenic bacteria and their susceptibility to antibiotics varied with the different regions. Kaye et al. showed that these variations were related to the latitude and the degree of urbanization of the population studied [26]. Therefore, local epidemiology of bacterial spectrum and its resistance to antibiotics should be paid attention and is mandatory to know. In this study, 30-year changing trends of microbiological profile of BK were reviewed.
From our results, the average rate of positive culture from the samples of BK was 47%. The large difference in positive culture rates (21~83%) between literatures may be related to the different indications of corneal scrapes in different medical institutions, the ability of microbiology laboratory, or to the fact that the study population had already received topical antibiotics treatment before corneal scraping.
In this study, the common bacterial isolates were Staphylococcus spp., Pseudomonas spp., Streptococcus spp., Corynebacterium spp. and Moraxella spp., which was consistent with studies in the USA [27], UK and Canada. Although the number of Moraxella strains was 311, lower than that in Serratia strains (373), Moraxella spp. were isolated from 7121 samples (4.4%, 16 studies) and 373 Serratia spp. were isolated from 10,431 samples (3.6%, 27 studies). Thus, we concluded that Moraxella spp. were more common than Serratia spp. Pseudomonas spp. was demonstrated to be the most common pathogen in Singapore and Malaysia, which may result from a local high frequency of using contact lenses. Keya et al. found the percentage of Enterobacterales was 15.3%, higher than the percentage of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. In addition, the upward trend of Gram-positive cocci and the downward trend of Gram-negative bacilli were observed, especially for the upward trend of Staphylococcus spp. and the downward trend of Pseudomonas spp. at the genus level. Similar trends were also presented in the studies from the UK [6] and Iran [23]. CoNS, one of the most common strains of Staphylococcus spp., was the major bacteria of normal skin, including eye lid. It would have more opportunity to contaminate the cornea; in addition, the conduction of corneal scraping was also easily susceptible to its contamination. The decreasing percentage of Pseudomonas spp. may be attributed to the wide application of some antibiotics, such as tobramycin and fluoroquinolones, and to the improvement in health conditions. Though several studies [4,5,6] reported a significant increase of Moraxella keratitis in UK for the last two decades, the trend was not shown in this worldwide study. Perhaps this trend was limited to specific regions.
In Gram-positive cocci, most isolates were susceptible to aminoglycoside (86%, 3916 sensitive in 4527), and resistant to macrolides in more than half of drug susceptivity tests (57%, 212 sensitive in 375). In the other two classes of antibiotics commonly used in clinical practice against Gram-positive cocci, cephalosporin and fluoroquinolone, 79% (1997 sensitive in 2515) and 81% (3921 sensitive in 4831) isolates showed susceptivity. Since 2010, the susceptibility of Gram-positive cocci to common antibiotics such as cefazolin, gatifloxacin, moxifloxacin and ofloxacin has shown a decreasing trend. For Gram-negative bacilli, most isolates were susceptive to cephalosporin (96%, 1269/1328) and fluoroquinolones (96%, 2519/2611), followed by aminoglycoside (92%, 2547/2783). The trends of susceptibility seemed stable and maintained above 90%. Some studies had reported a group of Pseudomonas spp. with multiple drug resistance [28,29]. It is necessary to use targeted antibiotics in case of the development of resistant strains.
The meta-analysis revealed the trend and distribution of bacterial keratitis pathogens and their drug resistance pattern guiding ophthalmologists to diagnosis and to choosing antibiotics based on their local data. Our study also possessed some limitations. Original studies often reported their results via time period (e.g., 2000–2005 CoNS 30%), not specific year (e.g., 2000 CoNS 30%), which affected the accuracy of our study. Differences between original studies, such as culture methods, participants who received topical antibiotics treatment before corneal scraping and experience of clinics would increase the difficulty of pathogen distribution analysis. Our study could still provide useful guidance for clinics.
In conclusion, the worldwide average positive culture was 47% between 2000 to 2020. The percentage of Gram-positive cocci was increasing, and the percentage of Gram-negative bacilli was decreasing. The five most common bacterial organism were Staphylococcus spp., Pseudomonas spp., Streptococcus spp., Corynebacterium spp. and Moraxella spp. Increasing trends of Gram-positive cocci and the decreasing trends of Gram-negative bacilli were observed in 1996–2015. Most Gram-positive cocci were susceptive to aminoglycoside and were resistant to macrolides. Gram-negative bacilli were sensitive to cephalosporin, fluoroquinolone and aminoglycoside and maintained susceptibility above 90%. The decreasing trends of susceptibility were observed in Gram-positive cocci to most common antibiotics. Ophthalmologists should pay attention to the changing trends of pathogen distribution and their drug resistance patterns and modify the diagnosis and choose sensitive antibiotics based on the local data.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Databases and Search Strategy

Four databases, including Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and CINAHL, were searched, and publication date of articles were limited between January 2000 to December 2020. Main key words were “bacterial keratitis”, “culture results” and “drug resistance”. The whole search strategy was (“bacterial keratitis” OR “infectious keratitis” OR “microbial keratitis” OR “bacterial infections” OR “corneal ulcers” OR “bacterial infections of cornea”) AND (“organisms” OR “culture results” OR “isolates” OR “microbiology” OR “antibiotic susceptibility” OR “resistance pattern”). In addition, the document type was restricted to “article”, the language was restricted to “English”, and the subjects were restricted to “human”. More details of the search strategy could be found in Supplement Materials Table S1.

4.2. Literature Selection and Quality Assessment

The literature searched in the above databases was imported into the EndNote X 9 software library for merging and de-duplicating; then, the titles and abstracts were screened by two researchers (Z.Z., J.L.) according to the following inclusion criteria: (1) Purpose of the article should concentrate on reporting the distribution and resistance pattern of bacterial keratitis isolates; (2) Subjects of the literature must contain patients suspected of infective keratitis and confirmed by positive bacterial culture results; (3) Pathogens were isolating from corneal scrapes via culture and were identified at least at the genus level; (4) Drug susceptibility tests should be conducted for isolated strains via in vitro minimum inhibitory concentration testing (MIC) or the disk diffusion method. The homogeneity of our meta-analysis was controlled by exclusive criteria below: (1) Subjects with small sample size or specific risk factors; (2) Subjects already selected by authors would be excluded for positive rate analysis. (3) Multiple articles published using the same data would be deduplicated. After preliminary exclusion of unrelated references, we downloaded the full text of each citation; the literature quality was evaluated based on a methodological scoring system of “rate” [30]. The detailed quality criteria were as follows: (1) Whether there is a clear diagnostic basis for bacterial keratitis; (2) Whether the sample size (the number of bacterial culture specimens) is greater than 246 cases; (3) Whether there are clear criteria for positive bacterial culture; (4) Whether there are clear study parameters, such as positive rate or drug susceptibility results; (5) Whether the data is complete. Complete data should include the description of study populations, methods for the drug susceptibility test, and protocol for bacteria separating and identifying. Each criterion was given one score, and studies with a score of 4 or more were of high quality and included for analysis. All the steps of screening and quality assessment were carried out independently by two researchers (Z.W., X.X.). In case of disagreement over the inclusion of the literature, a third, more experienced researcher (Q.L.) would make the final decision.

4.3. Data Extraction

According to the purpose of this study, the data extraction scale of the literature was developed. For each included article, four aspects of information would be extracted. The first is the basic information of the literature and the institution of the author, including the publication year, time that the research was conducted, author, title, medical institution, etc. Next, the necessary data of positive rate of culture, bacterial strains distribution and drug susceptibility were extracted. The positive rate of culture was defined as the proportion of BK patients with positive culture results in all culture-treated patients suspected of infective keratitis. The parameter necessary for analyzing bacterial strain distribution contained the total number of strains isolated, number classified by Gram staining and number of strains as accurate as possible to species. Parameters related to drug susceptibility included the number of susceptible or resistant species performed on a certain species of bacterium to a certain drug. All above data were extracted into Microsoft Excel software.

4.4. Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed with SPSS software (SPSS for windows, version 16.0, SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). The meta-analysis was conducted using R program (V.4.0, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) with meta package. All effect sizes were transformed into a single common metric, event rate with its 95% confidence interval, which indicated the number of participants in each sample endorsing bacterial keratitis. Either a random effects model or a fixed effects model was used to perform meta-analysis, which was determined by I2 statistic; I2 > 50% indicates a large heterogeneity among included studies and, correspondingly, a random effects model would be used; otherwise, a fixed effects model would be used.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/antibiotics11020238/s1, Table S1: Positive rate of bacterial culture from corneal lesions in different regions, References [5,7,8,11,12,16,18,21,28,29,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64] are cited in the Supplementary Materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.Z. and Q.L.; methodology, K.C.; software, X.X.; formal analysis, K.C.; investigation, Z.W.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.Z.; writing—review and editing, Q.L.; visualization, J.L.; supervision, Q.L.; project administration, Q.L.; funding acquisition, Q.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2021YFC2301000); the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 81970765.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Search Strategy

  • Search terms
  • Database: Embase, Medline, Web of Science and CINAHL
Epub Ahead of Print, in Process & other Non-Indexed Citation, Daily, and Versions from 1 January 2000 to 30 November 2020
The search limits were from 2000 to 2020 and English language, Human.
3.
Search Strategies
  • bacterial keratitis
  • infectious keratitis
  • microbial keratitis
  • bacterial infections
  • corneal ulcers
  • bacterial infections of cornea
  • 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6
  • organisms
  • culture results
  • isolates
  • microbiology
  • antibiotic susceptibility
  • drug resistance
  • resistance pattern
  • 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14
  • 7 and 15

Appendix B

Appendix B.1. Search Result

Appendix B.1.1. Summary

The whole search process was shown in Table A1.
Table
Table A1. Databases searched in our study.
Table A1. Databases searched in our study.
Database NameEndnote Importer OrderNumber of References before DeduplicationNumber of References after Deduplication (Removed)
Ovid Embase1829822
Ovid Medline(R)216971241
Web of Science321071515
CINAHL41010
TOTAL 3578

Appendix B.1.2. Ovid Embase

Search information was shown in Table A2.
Table
Table A2. Search information in Ovid Embase.
Table A2. Search information in Ovid Embase.
Database nameEmbase
Database platformOvid
Date of database coverage1974 to 6 December 2021
Date searched12/07/2021
Searched byZJ Zhang
Number of hits829
  • bacterial keratitis.mp. (1048)
  • infectious keratitis.mp. (854)
  • microbial keratitis.mp. (968)
  • corneal ulcer.mp. (1187)
  • bacterial infection of cornea.mp. (1)
  • 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 (3260)
  • organism.mp. (43790)
  • culture result.mp. (2317)
  • isolates.mp. (80983)
  • microbiology.mp. (100066)
  • antibiotic susceptibility.mp. (6595)
  • drug resistance.mp. (152927)
  • resistance pattern.mp. (1971)
  • 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 (347062)
  • 6 and 14 (829)

Appendix B.1.3. Ovid Medline(R)

Search information was shown in Table A3.
Table
Table A3. Search information in Ovid Medline(R).
Table A3. Search information in Ovid Medline(R).
Database nameMedline(R)
Database platformOvid
Date of database coverage1946 to November Week 4 2021
Date searched12/07/2021
Searched byZJ Zhang
Number of hits1697
  • bacterial keratitis (448)
  • infectious keratitis (608)
  • microbial keratitis (615)
  • corneal ulcer (2134)
  • bacterial infection of cornea (1)
  • 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 (3084)
  • organism (30665)
  • culture result (425)
  • isolates (78696)
  • microbiology (298577)
  • antibiotic susceptibility (4540)
  • drug resistance (148045)
  • resistance pattern (1054)
  • 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 (452932)
  • 6 and 14 (1697)

Appendix B.1.4. Web of Science

Search information was shown in Table A4.
Table
Table A4. Search information in Web of Science.
Table A4. Search information in Web of Science.
Database nameWeb of Science Core
Database platformWeb of Science
Date of database coverage1985 to 2021
Date searched12/07/2021
Searched byZJ Zhang
Number of hits2107
  • ALL = (bacterial keratitis) (2247)
  • ALL = (infectious keratitis) (2275)
  • ALL = (microbial keratitis) (1859)
  • ALL = (corneal ulcer) (2299)
  • ALL = (bacterial infection of cornea) (721)
  • 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 (6332)
  • ALL = (organism) (289051)
  • ALL = (culture result) (611251)
  • ALL = (isolates) (920667)
  • ALL = (microbiology) (305542)
  • ALL = (antibiotic susceptibility) (31902)
  • ALL = (drug resistance) (188954)
  • ALL = (resistance pattern) (69975)
  • 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 (2090362)
  • (6 and 14) AND LANGUAGE: (English) AND DOCUMENT TYPES: (Article) (2107)

Appendix B.1.5. EBSCO CLNAHL

Search information was shown in Table A5.
Table
Table A5. Search information in EBSCO CLNAHL.
Table A5. Search information in EBSCO CLNAHL.
Database nameCINAHL
Database platformEBSCO
Date of database coverage1961 to present
Date searched12/07/2021
Searched byZJ Zhang
Number of hits101
  • TX bacterial keratitis (26)
  • TX infectious keratitis (32)
  • TX microbial keratitis (48)
  • TX corneal ulcer (113)
  • TX bacterial infection of cornea (0)
  • S1 or S2 or S3 or S4 or S5 (173)
  • TX organism (3856)
  • TX culture result (1861)
  • TX isolates (6443)
  • TX microbiology (29341)
  • TX antibiotic susceptibility (653)
  • TX drug resistance (11158)
  • TX resistance pattern (592)
  • S7 or S8 or S9 or S10 or S11 or S12 or S13 (41951)
  • S6 and S14 (101)

References

  1. Whitcher, J.P.; Srinivasan, M.; Upadhyay, M.P. Corneal blindness: A global perspective. Bull. World Health Organ. 2001, 79, 214–221. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  2. Petrillo, F.; Folliero, V.; Santella, B.; Franci, G.; Foglia, F.; Trotta, M.C.; Della Rocca, M.T.; Avitabile, T.; Gagliano, C.; Galdiero, M. Prevalence and Antibiotic Resistance Patterns of Ocular Bacterial Strains Isolated from Pediatric Patients in University Hospital of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Naples, Italy. Int. J. Microbiol. 2020, 2020, 8847812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Petrillo, F.; Pignataro, D.; Lella, F.M.D.; Reibaldi, M.; Fallico, M.; Castellino, N.; Parisi, G.; Trotta, M.C.; D’Amico, M.; Santella, B. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Patterns and Resistance Trends of Staphylococcus aureus and Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci Strains Isolated from Ocular Infections. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ting, D.S.J.; Ho, C.S.; Cairns, J.; Elsahn, A.; Al-Aqaba, M.; Boswell, T.; Said, D.G.; Dua, H.S. A 12-year analysis of incidence, microbiological profiles, and in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility of infectious keratitis: The nottingham eye study. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. Conf. 2020, 61, 328–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Tan, S.; Walkden, A.; Au, L.; Fullwood, C.; Hamilton, A.; Qamruddin, A.; Armstrong, M.; Brahma, A.; Carley, F. Twelve-year analysis of microbial keratitis trends at a UK tertiary hospital. Eye 2017, 31, 1229–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ting, D.S.J.; Settle, C.; Morgan, S.J.; Baylis, O.; Ghosh, S. A 10-year analysis of microbiological profiles of microbial keratitis: The North East England Study. Eye 2018, 32, 1416–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Tavassoli, S.; Nayar, G.; Darcy, K.; Grzeda, M.; Luck, J.; Williams, O.M.; Tole, D. An 11-year analysis of microbial keratitis in the South West of England using brain-heart infusion broth. Eye 2019, 33, 1619–1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tam, A.L.; Côté, E.; Saldanha, M.; Lichtinger, A.; Slomovic, A.R. Bacterial Keratitis in Toronto: A 16-Year Review of the Microorganisms Isolated and the Resistance Patterns Observed. Cornea 2017, 36, 1528–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cariello, A.J.; Passos, R.M.; Yu, M.C.Z.; Hofling-Lima, A.L. Microbial keratitis at a referral center in Brazil. Int. Ophthalmol. 2011, 31, 197–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Marujo, F.I.; Hirai, F.E.; Yu, M.C.Z.; Hofling-Lima, A.L.; Freitas, D.d.; Sato, E.H. Distribution of infectious keratitis in a tertiary hospital in Brazil. Arq. Bras. Oftalmol. 2013, 76, 370–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Hernandez-Camarena, J.C.; Graue-Hernandez, E.O.; Ortiz-Casas, M.; Ramirez-Miranda, A.; Navas, A.; Pedro-Aguilar, L.; Lopez-Espinosa, N.L.; Gaona-Juarez, C.; Bautista-Hernandez, L.A.; Bautista-de Lucio, V.M. Trends in Microbiological and Antibiotic Sensitivity Patterns in Infectious Keratitis: 10-Year Experience in Mexico City. Cornea 2015, 34, 778–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Politis, M.; Wajnsztajn, D.; Rosin, B.; Block, C.; Solomon, A. Trends of Bacterial Keratitis Culture Isolates in Jerusalem: A 13-Years Analysis. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0165223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Green, M.; Carnt, N.; Apel, A.; Stapleton, F. Queensland Microbial Keratitis Database: 2005–2015. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2019, 103, 1481–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Cabrera-Aguas, M.; Khoo, P.; George, C.R.; Lahra, M.M.; Watson, S.L. Antimicrobial resistance trends in bacterial keratitis over 5 years in Sydney, Australia. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2020, 48, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Green, M.; Apel, A.; Stapleton, F. Risk factors and causative organisms in microbial keratitis. Cornea 2008, 27, 22–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hsiao, C.-H.; Sun, C.-C.; Yeh, L.-K.; Ma, D.H.; Chen, P.Y.; Lin, H.-C.; Tan, H.-Y.; Chen, H.-C.; Chen, S.-Y.; Huang, Y.-C. Shifting Trends in Bacterial Keratitis in Taiwan: A 10-Year Review in a Tertiary-Care Hospital. Cornea 2016, 35, 313–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ormerod, L.D.; Hertzmark, E.; Gomez, D.S.; Stabiner, R.G.; Schanzlin, D.J.; Smith, R.E. Epidemiology of microbial keratitis in southern California. A multivariate analysis. Ophthalmology 1987, 94, 1322–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Alexandrakis, G.; Alfonso, E.C.; Miller, D. Shifting trends in bacterial keratitis in south Florida and emerging resistance to fluoroquinolones. Ophthalmology 2000, 107, 1497–1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Houang, E.; Lam, D.; Fan, D.; Seal, D. Microbial keratitis in Hong Kong: Relationship to climate, environment and contact-lens disinfection. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2001, 95, 361–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gopinathan, U.; Sharma, S.; Garg, P.; Rao, G.N. Review of epidemiological features, microbiological diagnosis and treatment outcome of microbial keratitis: Experience of over a decade. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2009, 57, 273–279. [Google Scholar]
  21. Prokosch, V.; Gatzioufas, Z.; Thanos, S.; Stupp, T. Microbiological findings and predisposing risk factors in corneal ulcers. Graefes Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2012, 250, 369–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Termote, K.; Joe, A.W.; Butler, A.L.; McCarthy, M.; Blondeau, J.M.; Iovieno, A.; Holland, S.P.; Yeung, S.N. Epidemiology of bacterial corneal ulcers at tertiary centres in Vancouver, BC. Can. J. Ophthalmol. 2018, 53, 330–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Termote, K.; Joe, A.W.; Butler, A.L.; McCarthy, M.; Blondeau, J.M.; Iovieno, A.; Holland, S.P.; Yeung, S.N. Ocular Pathogens and Antibiotic Sensitivity in Bacterial Keratitis Isolates at King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital, 2011 to 2014. Cornea 2016, 35, 789–794. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hooi, S.H.; Hooi, S.T. Culture-proven bacterial keratitis in a Malaysian general hospital. Med. J. Malaysia 2005, 60, 614–623. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  25. Soleimani, M.; Tabatabaei, S.A.; Masoumi, A.; Mirshahi, R.; Ghahvechian, H.; Tayebi, F.; Momenaei, B.; Mahdizad, Z.; Mohammadi, S.S. Infectious keratitis: Trends in microbiological and antibiotic sensitivity patterns. Eye 2021, 35, 3110–3115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kaye, R.; Kaye, A.; Sueke, H.; Neal, T.; Winstanley, C.; Horsburgh, M.; Kaye, S. Recurrent bacterial keratitis. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013, 54, 4136–4139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Lin, A.; Rhee, M.K.; Akpek, E.K.; Amescua, G.; Farid, M.; Garcia-Ferrer, F.J.; Varu, D.M.; Musch, D.C.; Dunn, S.P.; Mah, F.S. Bacterial Keratitis Preferred Practice Pattern®. Ophthalmology 2019, 126, P1–P55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Al-Mujaini, A.; Al-Kharusi, N.; Thakral, A.; Wali, U.K. Bacterial keratitis: Perspective on epidemiology, clinico-pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment. Sultan Qaboos Univ. Med. J. 2009, 9, 184–195. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kaye, S.; Tuft, S.; Neal, T.; Tole, D.; Leeming, J.; Figueiredo, F.; Armstrong, M.; McDonnell, P.; Tullo, A.; Parry, C. Bacterial susceptibility to topical antimicrobials and clinical outcome in bacterial keratitis. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2010, 51, 362–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Jeng, B.H.; Gritz, D.C.; Kumar, A.B.; Holsclaw, D.S.; Porco, T.C.; Smith, S.D.; Whitcher, J.P.; Margolis, T.P.; Wong, I.G. Epidemiology of ulcerative keratitis in Northern California. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2010, 128, 1022–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Dhakwa, K.; Sharma, M.; Bajimaya, S.; Dwivedi, A.; Rai, S.K. Causative organisms in microbial keratitis, their sensitivity pattern and treatment outcome in western Nepal. Nepal J. Ophthalmol. 2012, 4, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Das, S.; Samantaray, R.; Mallick, A.; Sahu, S.K.; Sharma, S. Types of organisms and in-vitro susceptibility of bacterial isolates from patients with microbial keratitis: A trend analysis of 8 years. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2019, 67, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Richardson, W.S.; Wilson, M.C.; Guyatt, G.H.; Cook, D.J.; Nishikawa, J.; Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XV. How to use an article about disease probability for differential diagnosis. JAMA 1999, 281, 1214–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Afshari, N.A.; Ma, J.J.; Duncan, S.M.; Pineda, R.; Starr, C.E.; DeCroos, F.C.; Johnson, C.S.; Adelman, R.A. Trends in resistance to ciprofloxacin, cefazolin, and gentamicin in the treatment of bacterial keratitis. J. Ocul. Pharmacol. Ther. 2008, 24, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Aruljyothi, L.; Radhakrishnan, N.; Prajna, V.N.; Lalitha, P. Clinical and microbiological study of paediatric infectious keratitis in South India: A 3-year study (2011–2013). Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2016, 100, 1719–1723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Capriotti, J.; Pelletier, J.; Shah, M.; Caivano, D.; Turay, P.; Ritterband, D. The etiology of infectious corneal ulceration in Sierra Leone. Int. Ophthalmol. 2010, 30, 637–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Constantinou, M.; Jhanji, V.; Tao, L.W.; Vajpayee, R.B. Clinical review of corneal ulcers resulting in evisceration and enucleation in elderly population. Graefes Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2009, 247, 1389–1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Feilmeier, M.R.; Sivaraman, K.R.; Oliva, M.; Tabin, G.C.; Gurung, R. Etiologic diagnosis of corneal ulceration at a tertiary eye center in Kathmandu, Nepal. Cornea 2010, 29, 1380–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ferreira, C.S.; Figueira, L.; Moreira-Gonçalves, N.; Moreira, R.; Torrão, L.; Falcão-Reis, F. Clinical and Microbiological Profile of Bacterial Microbial Keratitis in a Portuguese Tertiary Referral Center-Where Are We in 2015? Eye Contact Lens 2018, 44, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fong, C.F.; Hu, F.R.; Tseng, C.H.; Wang, I.J.; Chen, W.L.; Hou, Y.C. Antibiotic Susceptibility of Bacterial Isolates from Bacterial Keratitis Cases in a University Hospital in Taiwan. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2007, 144, 682–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hall, R.C.; McKellar, M.J. Bacterial keratitis in Christchurch, New Zealand, 1997–2001. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2004, 32, 478–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Jin, H.; Parker, W.T.; Law, N.W.; Clarke, C.L.; Gisseman, J.D.; Pflugfelder, S.C.; Wang, L.; Al-Mohtaseb, Z.N. Evolving risk factors and antibiotic sensitivity patterns for microbial keratitis at a large county hospital. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2017, 101, 1483–1487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Khor, H.G.; Cho, I.; Lee, K.R.C.K.; Chieng, L.L. Spectrum of Microbial Keratitis Encountered in the Tropics. Eye Contact Lens 2020, 46, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lavaju, P.; Arya, S.; Khanal, B.; Amatya, R.; Patel, S. Demograhic pattern, clinical features and treatment outcome of patients with infective keratitis in the eastern region of Nepal. Nepal J. Ophthalmol. 2009, 1, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Lichtinger, A.; Yeung, S.N.; Kim, P.; Amiran, M.D.; Iovieno, A.; Elbaz, U.; Ku, J.Y.; Wolff, R.; Rootman, D.S.; Slomovic, A.R. Shifting trends in bacterial keratitis in Toronto: An 11-year review. Ophthalmology 2012, 119, 1785–1790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Lin, C.C.; Prajna, L.; Srinivasan, M.; Prajna, N.V.; McLeod, S.D.; Acharya, N.R.; Lietman, T.M.; Porco, T.C. Seasonal trends of microbial keratitis in South India. Cornea 2012, 31, 1123–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Lin, L.; Lan, W.; Lou, B.; Ke, H.; Yang, Y.; Lin, X.; Liang, L. Genus Distribution of Bacteria and Fungi Associated with Keratitis in a Large Eye Center Located in Southern China. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2017, 24, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Liu, H.-Y.; Chu, H.-S.; Wang, I.-J.; Chen, W.-L.; Hu, F.-R. Microbial Keratitis in Taiwan: A 20-Year Update. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2019, 205, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ly, C.N.; Pham, J.N.; Badenoch, P.R.; Bell, S.M.; Hawkins, G.; Rafferty, D.L.; McClellan, K.A. Bacteria commonly isolated from keratitis specimens retain antibiotic susceptibility to fluoroquinolones and gentamicin plus cephalothin. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2006, 34, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mun, Y.; Kim, M.K.; Oh, J.Y. Ten-year analysis of microbiological profile and antibiotic sensitivity for bacterial keratitis in Korea. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0213103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Orlans, H.O.; Hornby, S.J.; Bowler, I.C. In vitro antibiotic susceptibility patterns of bacterial keratitis isolates in Oxford, UK: A 10-year review. Eye 2011, 25, 489–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Otri, A.M.; Fares, U.; Al-Aqaba, M.A.; Miri, A.; Faraj, L.A.; Said, D.G.; Maharajan, S.; Dua, H.S. Profile of sight-threatening infectious keratitis: A prospective study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2013, 91, 643–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Pandita, A.; Murphy, C. Microbial keratitis in Waikato, New Zealand. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2011, 39, 393–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Peng, M.Y.; Cevallos, V.; McLeod, S.D.; Lietman, T.M.; Rose-Nussbaumer, J. Bacterial Keratitis: Isolated Organisms and Antibiotic Resistance Patterns in San Francisco. Cornea 2018, 37, 84–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Rossetto, J.D.; Cavuoto, K.M.; Osigian, C.J.; Chang, T.C.P.; Miller, D.; Capo, H.; Spierer, O. Paediatric infectious keratitis: A case series of 107 children presenting to a tertiary referral centre. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2017, 101, 1488–1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Saeed, A.; D’Arcy, F.; Stack, J.; Collum, L.M.; Power, W.; Beatty, S. Risk factors, microbiological findings, and clinical outcomes in cases of microbial keratitis admitted to a tertiary referral center in ireland. Cornea 2009, 28, 285–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sand, D.; She, R.; Shulman, I.A.; Chen, D.S.; Schur, M.; Hsu, H.Y. Microbial keratitis in los angeles: The doheny eye institute and the los angeles county hospital experience. Ophthalmology 2015, 122, 918–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Schaefer, F.; Bruttin, O.; Zografos, L.; Guex-Crosier, Y. Bacterial keratitis: A prospective clinical and microbiological study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2001, 85, 842–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Sharma, N.; Venugopal, R.; Singhal, D.; Maharana, P.K.; Sangwan, S.; Satpathy, G. Microbial Keratitis in Stevens-Johnson Syndrome: A Prospective Study. Cornea 2019, 38, 938–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sharma, S.; Taneja, M.; Gupta, R.; Upponi, A.; Gopinathan, U.; Nutheti, R.; Garg, P. Comparison of clinical and microbiological profiles in smear-positive and smear-negative cases of suspected microbial keratitis. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2007, 55, 21–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tena, D.; Rodríguez, N.; Toribio, L.; González-Praetorius, A. Infectious Keratitis: Microbiological Review of 297 Cases. Jpn. J. Infect. Dis. 2019, 72, 121–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Watson, S.; Cabrera-Aguas, M.; Khoo, P.; Pratama, R.; Gatus, B.J.; Gulholm, T.; El-Nasser, J.; Lahra, M.M. Keratitis Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Program, Sydney, Australia: 2016 Annual Report. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2019, 47, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Yeh, D.L.; Stinnett, S.S.; Afshari, N.A. Analysis of bacterial cultures in infectious keratitis, 1997 to 2004. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2006, 142, 1066–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Yilmaz, S.; Ozturk, I.; Maden, A. Microbial keratitis in West Anatolia, Turkey: A retrospective review. Int. Ophthalmol. 2007, 27, 261–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Antibiotics 11 00238 g001 550
Figure 1. The PRISMA flow chart of paper selection.
Figure 1. The PRISMA flow chart of paper selection.
Antibiotics 11 00238 g001
Antibiotics 11 00238 g002 550
Figure 2. Analysis of positive rate of bacterial culture (38 studies).
Figure 2. Analysis of positive rate of bacterial culture (38 studies).
Antibiotics 11 00238 g002
Antibiotics 11 00238 g003 550
Figure 3. Positive rate of bacterial culture from corneal lesions in different regions.
Figure 3. Positive rate of bacterial culture from corneal lesions in different regions.
Antibiotics 11 00238 g003
Antibiotics 11 00238 g004 550
Figure 4. The changing trends of bacterial isolates from corneal lesions in 1990s–2020s.
Figure 4. The changing trends of bacterial isolates from corneal lesions in 1990s–2020s.
Antibiotics 11 00238 g004
Antibiotics 11 00238 g005 550
Figure 5. Results of drug susceptibility test of the strains isolated from corneal lesions.
Figure 5. Results of drug susceptibility test of the strains isolated from corneal lesions.
Antibiotics 11 00238 g005
Antibiotics 11 00238 g006 550
Figure 6. The changing trends of drug susceptibility in 1990s–2020s.
Figure 6. The changing trends of drug susceptibility in 1990s–2020s.
Antibiotics 11 00238 g006
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis.
Table 1. Characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis.
Authors (Years)CountryCityStudy PeriodSample SizePositive Rate (%)Microbiological Profiles
Europe
Schaefer (2001)SwitzerlandLausanne1997–19988586Staphylococcus epidermidis (29.0%)
Staphylococcus aureus (16.0%)
Pseudomonas species (7.0%)
Saeed (2009)IrelandDublin2001–20039036Pseudomonas species (33.3%)
Coagulase negative staphylococci (12.1%)
Staphylococcus aureus (9.0%)
Orlans (2011)UKOxford1999–200946754Coagulase negative staphylococci (25.8%)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (24.3%)
Staphylococcus aureus (14.3%)
Prokosch (2012)GermanyMünster2002–200934643Staphylococcus aureus (31.7%)
Pseudomonas species (7.5%)
Streptococcus pneumoniae (6.0%)
Otri (2013)UKNottingham2007–200712935Staphylococcus aureus (18.8%)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (15.0%)
Pneumococcus (9.4%)
Tan (2017)UKManchester2004–2015422930Coagulase negative staphylococci (38.5%)
Pseudomonas (37.1%)
Staphylococcus aureus (23.9%)
Ferreira (2018)PortugalPorto2007–201523538Staphylococcus aureus (23.1%)
Corynebacterium macginleyi (20.0%)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (13.8%)
Tavassoli (2019)UKBristol2006–2017211638Coagulase negative staphylococci (49.9%)
Pseudomonas species (22.0%)
Streptococci (9.7%)
Tena (2019)SpainGuadalajara2010–201629865Coagulase negative staphylococci (28.6%)
Cutibacterium species (19.6%)
Corynebacterium species (9.8%)
Africa
Capriotti (2010)Sierra LeoneFreetown2005–20067358Pseudomonas aeruginosa (39.7%)
Staphylococcus aureus (27.4%)
Coagulase negative staphylococci (5.5%)
Asia
Sharma (2007)IndiaHyderabad2002–200217062Staphylococcus epidermidis (18.6%)
Streptococcus pneumoniae (18.6%)
Pseudomonas species (4.9%)
Yilmaz (2007)TurkeyIzmir1990–200562028Staphylococcus epidermidis (26.6%)
Staphylococcus aureus (24.4%)
Streptococcus pneumoniae (15.5%)
Fong (2007)ChinaTaipei1994–2005272-Pseudomonas aeruginosa (46.7%)
Cutibacterium species (8.1%)
Nontuberculous Mycobacteria (6.6%)
Lavaju (2009)NepalDharan2007–20084436Staphylococcus aureus (70.0%)
Pseudomonas species (15.0%)
Acinetobactor species (5.0%)
Feilmeier (2010)NepalKathmandu2006–200946815Streptococcus pneumoniae (69.0%)
Staphylococcus aureus (11.0%)
Staphylococcus epidermidis (7.0%)
Dhakhwa (2012)NepalSiddharthanagar200741439Staphylococcus epidermidis (29.6%)
Streptococcus viridans (15.1%)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (14.0%)
Lin (2012)IndiaMadurai2006–2009522121Staphylococcus epidermidis (31.9%)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (12.4%)
Staphylococcus simulans (5.5%)
Politis (2016)IsraelJerusalem2002–201494344Coagulase-negative staphylococci (43.9%)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (24.8%)
Streptococcus pneumoniae (6.9%)
Hsiao (2016)ChinaTaoyuan2003–2012201240Pseudomonas aeruginosa (24.4%)
Coagulase-negative staphylococci (16.6%)
Cutibacterium species (9.1%)
Aruljyothi (2016)IndiaMadurai2011–201323430Pseudomonas aeruginosa (37.9%)
Streptococcus pneumoniae (24.1%)
Staphylococcus aureus (12.0%)
Lin (2017)ChinaGuangzhou2009–2013297312Staphylococcus epidermidis (31.9%)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (12.4%)
Staphylococcus simulans (5.5%)
Bagga (2018)IndiaHyderabad1991–20126042Staphylocci (35.0%)
Corynebacteria (25.5%)
Streptococci (24.0%)
Mun (2019)KoreaSeoul2007–201612978Coagulase negative staphylococci (15.9%)
Staphylococcus aureus (12.1%)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (10.3%)
Liu (2019)ChinaTaipei2007–201636351Pseudomonas species (44.7%)
Nontuberculous Mycobacteria (7.5%)
Propioebacterium species (6.8%)
Das (2019)IndiaHyderabad2007–2014398129Streptococcus pneumoniae (16.1%)
Staphylococcus aureus (13.8%)
Pseudomonas species (7.4%)
Khor (2020)MalaysiaSarawak2010–201622130Pseudomonas aeruginosa (33.6%)
Staphylococcus aureus (3.4%)
Corynebacterium species (1.7%)
Oceania
Hall (2004)New ZealandChristchurch1997–20018759Coagulase negative staphylococci (19.3%)
Moraxella species (19.3%)
Coryebacterium species (16.0%)
Ly (2006)AustraliaSydney2002–200311242Coagulase negative staphylococci (38.0%)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (21.0%)
Corynebacterium species and coryneform bacteria (15.0%)
Constantinou (2009)AustraliaMelbourne1998–20074770Pseudomonas aeruginosa (33.3%)
Coagulase negative staphylococci (11.1%)
Cutibacterium acnes (8.9%)
Pandita (2011)New ZealandHamilton200726565Coagulase negative staphylococci (40.8%)
Staphylococcus aureus (11.5%)
Streptococcus pneumonia (7.5%)
Watson (2019)AustraliaSydney201622475Coagulase negative staphylococci (47.8%)
Staphylococcus aureus (9.6%)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (9.6%)
America
Alexandrakis (2000)USAMiami1990–1998292050Pseudomonas aeruginosa (25.7%)
Staphylococcus aureus (19.4%)
Serratia marcescens (7.6%)
Yeh (2006)USADurham1997–200445368Coagulase negative staphylococci (39.0%)
Staphylococcus aureus (12.0%)
Pseudomonas species (10.0%)
Afshari (2008)USABoston1999–200048566Coagulase negative staphylococci (45.5%)
Staphylococcus aureus (15.2%)
Diphtheroids (5.7%)
Lichtinger (2012)CanadaToronto2000–2010170153Coagulase negative staphylococci (37.0%)
Staphylococcus aureus (17.0%)
Streptococcus species (17.0%)
Hernandez-Camarena (2015)MexicoMexico City2002–2011163833Staphylococcus epidermidis (25%)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (12%)
Coagulase negative staphylococci (10%)
Sand (2015)USALos angeles2008–201247662Coagulase negative staphylococci (51.4%)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (15.3%)
Staphylococcus aureus (12.8%)
Rossetto (2017)USAMiami1992–201510758Pseudomonas aeruginosa (42.1%)
Strenotrophomonas maltophilia (17.5%)
Serratia marcescens (8.8%)
Tam (2017)CanadaToronto2000–2015233049Coagulase negative staphylococci (37%)
Staphylococcus aureus (15%)
Streptococcus species (15%)
Jin (2017)USAHouston2011–20159662Pseudomonas aeruginosa (33.9%)
Coagulase negative staphylococci (26.8%)
Streptococcus pneumoniae (10.7%)
Peng (2018)USASan Francisco1996–2015220324Staphylococcus aureus (25.1%)
Coagulase negative staphylococci (20.5%)
Streptococcus viridans (13%)
Termote (2018)CanadaVancouver2006–201128175Coagulase negative staphylococci (25.6%)
Streptococcus species (12.4%)
Staphylococcus aureus (12.1%)
Table
Table 2. Distribution of bacteria isolated from corneal lesions of bacterial keratitis.
Table 2. Distribution of bacteria isolated from corneal lesions of bacterial keratitis.
OrganismIsolatesPercentage (%)95%CI (%)
Gram-positive cocci878662.357.9~66.5
Staphylococcus531141.436.2~46.7
Streptococcus191313.110.9~15.7
Gemella183.82.4~6.0
Micrococcus412.51.8~3.3
Kocuria121.60.9~2.8
Enterococcus101.30.7~2.4
Aerococcus70.80.3~1.6
Leuconostoc60.80.4~1.7
Peptostreptococcus20.70.2~2.9
Gram-negative bacilli377629.626.0~33.5
Pseudomonas233117.013.9~20.7
Moraxella3114.13.1~5.4
Serratia3733.42.7~4.2
Haemophilus642.21.8~2.8
Proteus542.11.1~4.0
Escherichia382.01.5~2.7
Klebsiella171.81.1~2.8
Achromobacter11.90.0~12.2
Acinetobacter261.81.3~2.7
Burkholderia181.81.2~2.9
Enterobacter131.20.7~2.0
Stenotrophomonas111.10.6~2.0
Citrobacter21.00.3~3.9
Morganella50.90.4~2.0
Gram-positive bacilli8715.23.9~6.8
Corynebacterium2846.65.2~8.3
Nocardia963.92.4~6.0
Cutibacterium2433.31.7~6.0
Bacilli1842.60.7~8.5
Sphingomonas22.60.7~8.5
Brevibacterium22.60.7~8.5
Clostridium21.00.3~3.9
Mycobacterium100.80.4~1.5
Aeromonas30.80.3~2.1
Gram-negative cocci265.23.9~6.8
Neisseria50.80.3~1.9
not mentioned189111.99.3~15.1
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, Z.; Cao, K.; Liu, J.; Wei, Z.; Xu, X.; Liang, Q. Pathogens and Antibiotic Susceptibilities of Global Bacterial Keratitis: A Meta-Analysis. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 238. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11020238

AMA Style

Zhang Z, Cao K, Liu J, Wei Z, Xu X, Liang Q. Pathogens and Antibiotic Susceptibilities of Global Bacterial Keratitis: A Meta-Analysis. Antibiotics. 2022; 11(2):238. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11020238

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Zijun, Kai Cao, Jiamin Liu, Zhenyu Wei, Xizhan Xu, and Qingfeng Liang. 2022. "Pathogens and Antibiotic Susceptibilities of Global Bacterial Keratitis: A Meta-Analysis" Antibiotics 11, no. 2: 238. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11020238

APA Style

Zhang, Z., Cao, K., Liu, J., Wei, Z., Xu, X., & Liang, Q. (2022). Pathogens and Antibiotic Susceptibilities of Global Bacterial Keratitis: A Meta-Analysis. Antibiotics, 11(2), 238. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11020238

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop