Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19160207›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2009

Antibiotics for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotic patients.

Norberto C Chavez-Tapia, Karla Soares-Weiser, Mayer Brezis, Leonard Leibovici

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. [Antibiotic therapy of intra-abdominal infections in the era of multiresistance].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2016
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Norberto C Chavez-TapiaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Vasco de Quiroga #5, Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico, 14000. khavez@gmail.com
Karla Soares-Weiser
Mayer Brezis
Leonard Leibovici
Hadassah Medical Center · ILInstituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán · MXRabin Medical Center · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpontaneous bacterial peritonitis is a complication of cirrhotic ascites that occurs in the absence of any intra-abdominal, surgically treatable source of infection. Antibiotic therapy is indicated and should be initiated as soon as possible to avoid severe complications that may lead to death. It has been proposed that empirical treatment should cover gram-negative enteric bacteria and gram-positive cocci, responsible for up to 90% of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis cases.

objectivesThis review aims to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of different types and modes of antibiotic therapy in the treatment of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotic patients. SEARCH STRATEGY: We performed electronic searches in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (July 2008), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2008), MEDLINE (1950 to July 2008), EMBASE (1980 to July 2008), and Science Citation Index EXPANDED (1945 to July 2008). In addition, we handsearched the references of all identified studies and contacted the first author of each included trial. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised studies comparing different types of antibiotics for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotic patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted from the trials by at least two authors. Peto odds ratios or average differences, with their 95% confidence intervals, were estimated. MAIN

resultsThis systematic review attempted to summarise evidence from randomised clinical trials on the treatment of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Thirteen studies were included; each one of them compared different antibiotics in their experimental and control groups. No meta-analyses could be performed, though data on the main outcomes were collected and analysed separately for each included trial. Currently, the evidence showing that lower dosage or short-term treatment with third generation cephalosporins is as effective as higher dosage or long-term treatment is weak. Oral quinolones could be considered an option for those with less severe manifestations of the disease. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThis review provides no clear evidence for the treatment of cirrhotic patients with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. In practice, third generation cephalosporins have already been established as the standard treatment of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and it is clear, that empirical antibiotic therapy should be provided in any case. However, until large, well-conducted trials provide more information, practice will remain based on impression, not evidence.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsAscitesBacterial InfectionsHumansLiver CirrhosisPeritonitisRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID19160207
PMCPMC7100568
OpenAlexW1512053776

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.