Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,100Open textbooks2Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology107Genetics and Genomics95Neuroscience110Cardiovascular Medicine105Immunology90Pharmacology99Molecular Biology100Infectious Diseases102Rare and Inherited Diseases106Clinical Research98Anatomy and Physiology542Drugs and Chemicals546
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Infectious Diseases›Corneal Ulcer
Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Corneal Ulcer

Infectious Diseases · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-10-29 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed10 referencesApproximately 4 min read

Loss of epithelial tissue from the surface of the cornea due to progressive erosion and necrosis of the tissue; usually caused by bacterial, fungal, or viral infection.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 4 complete abstracts (863 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

Loss of epithelial tissue from the surface of the cornea due to progressive erosion and necrosis of the tissue; usually caused by bacterial, fungal, or viral infection.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Ulcer, Corneal; Keratitis, Ulcerative; Keratitides, Ulcerative; Ulcerative Keratitides; Ulcerative Keratitis.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Eye Infections; Keratitis
See also
Canaliculitis

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 5,991 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Corneal Ulcer” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 844 of them (14.1%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is through 1999 with 2,772 records.

Reviews account for 405 records (6.8%) and meta-analyses for 8. Randomized controlled trials number 141 (2.4%) as a share of all records on the topic.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 2,772 records; 2000-2009: 1,102 records; 2010-2019: 1,273 records; 2020 onward: 844 records2,772through 19991,1022000-20091,2732010-20198442020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 19992,772
2000-20091,102
2010-20191,273
2020 onward844
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 6.8 percent; Meta-analyses: 0.1 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 2.4 percentReviews6.8% (405)Meta-analyses0.1% (8)Randomized controlled trials2.4% (141)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 5,991 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews4056.8%
Meta-analyses80.1%
Randomized controlled trials1412.4%

Method: PubMed query "Corneal Ulcer"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.

Reading the evidence in infectious diseases

Infectious disease evidence combines microbiology, epidemiology and clinical trials. Laboratory studies identify pathogens and how they cause harm; surveillance and outbreak investigations describe who is affected and how infection spreads; trials establish whether treatments and vaccines work. Results depend on place and time, because pathogens evolve and resistance patterns and population immunity change. Check when and where the data were collected, how cases were defined and how up to date the evidence is.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
Infectious keratitis: A review
Cabrera-Aguas M, Khoo P, Watson SL
2022Review article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
251cc by
PMID 35610943 · DOI · PMC9542356
Identifying Corneal Infections in Formalin-Fixed Specimens Using Next Generation Sequencing
Li Z, Breitwieser FP, Lu J, Jun AS, Asnaghi L, Salzberg SL, et al.
2018Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
54cc by
PMID 29340642 · DOI · PMC5770184
Comparison of culture, confocal microscopy and PCR in routine hospital use for microbial keratitis diagnosis
Hoffman JJ, Dart JKG, De SK, Carnt N, Cleary G, Hau S
2022Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
47cc by
PMID 34741122 · DOI · PMC9581916
Overcoming Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacterial Keratitis With an Antibiotic-Eluting Contact Lens
Kuang L, Ross AE, Chen L, Kanu LN, Boychev N, Ghaffarieh A, et al.
2025Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
2cc by
PMID 41384791 · DOI · PMC12707326

Infectious keratitis: A review [1]

Review article Cabrera-Aguas M, Khoo P, Watson SL · · 2022 · cited 251 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Globally, infectious keratitis is the fifth leading cause of blindness.
Closing excerpt
Vision impairment, blindness and even loss of the eye can occur with a delay in diagnosis and inappropriate antimicrobial therapy.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (149 words)

Globally, infectious keratitis is the fifth leading cause of blindness. The main predisposing factors include contact lens wear, ocular injury and ocular surface disease. Staphylococcus species, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Fusarium species, Candida species and Acanthamoeba species are the most common causal organisms. Culture of corneal scrapes is the preferred initial test to identify the culprit organism. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests and in vivo confocal microscopy can complement the diagnosis. Empiric therapy is typically commenced with fluoroquinolones, or fortified antibiotics for bacterial keratitis; topical natamycin for fungal keratitis; and polyhexamethylene biguanide or chlorhexidine for acanthamoeba keratitis. Herpes simplex keratitis is mainly diagnosed clinically; however, PCR can also be used to confirm the initial diagnosis and in atypical cases. Antivirals and topical corticosteroids are indicated depending on the corneal layer infected. Vision impairment, blindness and even loss of the eye can occur with a delay in diagnosis and inappropriate antimicrobial therapy.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 35610943 · DOI · PMC9542356

Identifying Corneal Infections in Formalin-Fixed Specimens Using Next Generation Sequencing [2]

Research article Li Z, Breitwieser FP, Lu J, Jun AS, Asnaghi L, Salzberg SL, et al. · · 2018 · cited 54 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
PurposeWe test the ability of next-generation sequencing, combined with computational analysis, to identify a range of organisms causing infectious keratitis.
Closing excerpt
ConclusionsNext generation sequencing combined with computational analysis can identify a wide range of pathogens in formalin-fixed corneal specimens, with potential applications in clinical diagnostics and research.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (239 words)

PurposeWe test the ability of next-generation sequencing, combined with computational analysis, to identify a range of organisms causing infectious keratitis.MethodsThis retrospective study evaluated 16 cases of infectious keratitis and four control corneas in formalin-fixed tissues from the pathology laboratory. Infectious cases also were analyzed in the microbiology laboratory using culture, polymerase chain reaction, and direct staining. Classified sequence reads were analyzed with two different metagenomics classification engines, Kraken and Centrifuge, and visualized using the Pavian software tool.ResultsSequencing generated 20 to 46 million reads per sample. On average, 96% of the reads were classified as human, 0.3% corresponded to known vectors or contaminant sequences, 1.7% represented microbial sequences, and 2.4% could not be classified. The two computational strategies successfully identified the fungal, bacterial, and amoebal pathogens in most patients, including all four bacterial and mycobacterial cases, five of six fungal cases, three of three Acanthamoeba cases, and one of three herpetic keratitis cases. In several cases, additional potential pathogens also were identified. In one case with cytomegalovirus identified by Kraken and Centrifuge, the virus was confirmed by direct testing, while two where Staphylococcus aureus or cytomegalovirus were identified by Centrifuge but not Kraken could not be confirmed. Confirmation was not attempted for an additional three potential pathogens identified by Kraken and 11 identified by Centrifuge.ConclusionsNext generation sequencing combined with computational analysis can identify a wide range of pathogens in formalin-fixed corneal specimens, with potential applications in clinical diagnostics and research.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 29340642 · DOI · PMC5770184

Comparison of culture, confocal microscopy and PCR in routine hospital use for microbial keratitis diagnosis [3]

Research article Hoffman JJ, Dart JKG, De SK, Carnt N, Cleary G, Hau S · · 2022 · cited 47 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
AimsTo evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of polymerase chain reaction (PCR), in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM) and culture for microbial keratitis (MK) diagnosis.
Closing excerpt
Both FK and AK are now common in the UK; ophthalmology units need to have all these techniques available to optimise their MK management.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (241 words)

AimsTo evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of polymerase chain reaction (PCR), in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM) and culture for microbial keratitis (MK) diagnosis.MethodsRetrospective review of PCR, IVCM and culture results for MK diagnosis at Moorfields Eye Hospital between August 2013 and December 2014.ResultsPCR results were available for 259 MK patients with concurrent culture for 203/259 and IVCM for 149/259. Sensitivities and specificities with 95% confidence intervals [95% CI] were calculated for Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK) and fungal keratitis (FK), by comparison with culture, for both IVCM and PCR. For AK, FK and bacterial keratitis (BK) sensitivities were calculated, for each diagnostic method, by comparison with a composite reference standard (a positive result for one or more of culture, PCR or IVCM having a specificity of 100% by definition). For the latter, sensitivities with [95% CI] were: for AK, IVCM 77.1% [62.7-88.0%], PCR 63.3% [48.3-76.6%], culture 35.6 [21.9-51.2]; for FK, IVCM 81.8% [48.2-97.7%], PCR 30.8% [9.09-61.4%], culture 41.7% [15.2-72.3%]; for BK, PCR 25.0% [14.7-37.9%], culture 95.6% [87.6-99.1%].ConclusionIVCM was the most sensitive technique for AK and FK diagnosis but culture remains our gold standard for BK. These findings reflect results to be expected from service providers to UK ophthalmology units and demonstrates the need at our centre for ongoing diagnostic result audit leading to the potential to improve PCR diagnosis. Both FK and AK are now common in the UK; ophthalmology units need to have all these techniques available to optimise their MK management.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 34741122 · DOI · PMC9581916

Overcoming Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacterial Keratitis With an Antibiotic-Eluting Contact Lens [4]

Research article Kuang L, Ross AE, Chen L, Kanu LN, Boychev N, Ghaffarieh A, et al. · · 2025 · cited 2 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
PurposeBacterial keratitis (BK) is a leading cause of corneal blindness globally, with an alarming rise in resistant infections.
Closing excerpt
86-log CFU/cornea (P ConclusionsM-TCLs offer a promising therapy for BK and may serve as a potential therapy for drug-resistant BK.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (234 words)

PurposeBacterial keratitis (BK) is a leading cause of corneal blindness globally, with an alarming rise in resistant infections. Current standard-of-care antibiotic eye drops or ointments suffer from low bioavailability and often fail to achieve therapeutic concentrations in cornea. This study evaluated a therapeutic contact lens (M-TCL) designed to provide sustained, localized high drug concentrations of moxifloxacin-a commonly used broad-spectrum antibiotic-as a potential treatment for drug-resistant BK.MethodsM-TCLs were engineered by encapsulating a thin moxifloxacin-polymer film within periphery of a contact lens hydrogel. Pharmacokinetics were assessed in rabbit ocular tissues and serum. Efficacy was evaluated using a rabbit keratitis model induced by clinical methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolates that displayed in vitro resistance to moxifloxacin (minimum inhibitory concentration = 8 µg/mL). Biocompatibility was assessed through Draize testing and histological analysis.ResultsIn vitro, M-TCLs retained physical properties comparable to commercial contact lenses, sustained moxifloxacin release over 24 hours, and remained stable in a hydrated state for 12 months, enabling on-demand use. In rabbits, M-TCLs maintained higher corneal drug concentrations at all time points over 24 hours than the peak concentration from moxifloxacin drops (P = 0.03), with a 32-fold higher peak drug concentration and at least 11.3-fold greater area under the concentration-time curve (AUC(0-24 h)) in cornea. M-TCLs demonstrated bactericidal efficacy against MRSA keratitis with bacterial reduction of 3.86-log CFU/cornea (P ConclusionsM-TCLs offer a promising therapy for BK and may serve as a potential therapy for drug-resistant BK.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41384791 · DOI · PMC12707326

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article Update on the Management of Infectious Keratitis [5]
    Austin A, Lietman T, Rose-Nussbaumer J · Ophthalmology · 2017 · cited 423 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Nerve Growth Factor: A Focus on Neuroscience and Therapy [6]
    Aloe L, Rocco ML, Balzamino BO, Micera A · Curr Neuropharmacol · 2015 · cited 186 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Twenty-five-year panorama of corneal immunology: emerging concepts in the immunopathogenesis of microbial keratitis, peripheral ulcerative keratitis, and corneal transplant rejection [7]
    Dana MR, Qian Y, Hamrah P · Cornea · 2000 · cited 171 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Fungal keratitis: A review of clinical presentations, treatment strategies and outcomes [8]
    Sharma N, Bagga B, Singhal D, Nagpal R, Kate A, Saluja G, et al. · Ocul Surf · 2022 · cited 168 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Proteolytic mechanisms in corneal ulceration and repair [9]
    Fini ME, Cook JR, Mohan R · Arch Dermatol Res · 1998 · cited 133 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Antibiotic Resistance in the Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus Keratitis: a 20-Year Review [10]
    Chang VS, Dhaliwal DK, Raju L, Kowalski RP · Cornea · 2015 · cited 121 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Cabrera-Aguas M, Khoo P, Watson SL. Infectious keratitis: A review. . 2022. PMID 35610943 · DOI · PMC9542356
  2. Li Z, Breitwieser FP, Lu J, Jun AS, Asnaghi L, Salzberg SL, et al.. Identifying Corneal Infections in Formalin-Fixed Specimens Using Next Generation Sequencing. . 2018. PMID 29340642 · DOI · PMC5770184
  3. Hoffman JJ, Dart JKG, De SK, Carnt N, Cleary G, Hau S. Comparison of culture, confocal microscopy and PCR in routine hospital use for microbial keratitis diagnosis. . 2022. PMID 34741122 · DOI · PMC9581916
  4. Kuang L, Ross AE, Chen L, Kanu LN, Boychev N, Ghaffarieh A, et al.. Overcoming Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacterial Keratitis With an Antibiotic-Eluting Contact Lens. . 2025. PMID 41384791 · DOI · PMC12707326
  5. Austin A, Lietman T, Rose-Nussbaumer J. Update on the Management of Infectious Keratitis. Ophthalmology. 2017. PMID 28942073 · DOI · PMC5710829
  6. Aloe L, Rocco ML, Balzamino BO, Micera A. Nerve Growth Factor: A Focus on Neuroscience and Therapy. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2015. PMID 26411962 · DOI · PMC4812798
  7. Dana MR, Qian Y, Hamrah P. Twenty-five-year panorama of corneal immunology: emerging concepts in the immunopathogenesis of microbial keratitis, peripheral ulcerative keratitis, and corneal transplant rejection. Cornea. 2000. PMID 11009315 · DOI
  8. Sharma N, Bagga B, Singhal D, Nagpal R, Kate A, Saluja G, et al.. Fungal keratitis: A review of clinical presentations, treatment strategies and outcomes. Ocul Surf. 2022. PMID 34915188 · DOI
  9. Fini ME, Cook JR, Mohan R. Proteolytic mechanisms in corneal ulceration and repair. Arch Dermatol Res. 1998. PMID 9710379 · DOI
  10. Chang VS, Dhaliwal DK, Raju L, Kowalski RP. Antibiotic Resistance in the Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus Keratitis: a 20-Year Review. Cornea. 2015. PMID 25811722 · DOI · PMC4426026

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-10-29.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • Acanthamoeba KeratitisInfectious Diseases
  • Buruli UlcerInfectious Diseases
  • Corneal StromaAnatomy and Physiology
  • Basal Cell CarcinomaCancer and Oncology
  • Descemet MembraneAnatomy and Physiology
  • CorneaAnatomy and Physiology

All 102 articles in Infectious Diseases →

At a glance

5,991
PubMed records on this heading
14%
published since 2020
405
review articles
141
randomized trials
10
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-10-29; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • Acanthamoeba KeratitisInfectious Diseases
  • Buruli UlcerInfectious Diseases
  • Corneal StromaAnatomy and Physiology
  • Basal Cell CarcinomaCancer and Oncology
  • Descemet MembraneAnatomy and Physiology

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Legal · Support