ArticleSurgical endoscopy2014
A prospective audit of the use of diagnostic laparoscopy to establish the diagnosis of abdominal tuberculosis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of diagnostic laparoscopy results in Turkish patients with unexplained ascites.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Gastrointestinal tuberculosis: Diagnostic approaches for this uncommon pathology.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- Hepatic and Intra-abdominal Tuberculosis: 2016 Update.Current infectious disease reports · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe incidence of abdominal tuberculosis is much higher in an HIV-positive cohort. The use of laparoscopy in the diagnostic work-up of suspected abdominal tuberculosis is underutilized and its use and efficacy in the context of HIV co-infection has never been examined.
methodsA prospective clinical audit of the use of diagnostic laparoscopy was conducted in patients with clinically suspected abdominal tuberculosis but histologically or microbiologically unconfirmed tuberculosis at any site.
resultsFrom January 2008 to June 2010, 81 patients underwent diagnostic laparoscopy; 34 were male and 47 were female, with a mean age of 33 years, and 77 % were HIV-positive. Fifty-five patients (68 %) had positive histology or culture for tuberculosis. In 15 patients (19 %), histology revealed non-specific inflammation, no pathology was found in one patient, and no specimen was taken from one patient. Eighty percent of peritoneal deposits and 77 % of lymph nodes were positive for tuberculosis, whereas 35 % of ascitic fluid cultures were positive. In nine patients (11 %) an alternative diagnosis was found; nine patients (11 %) had conversion to laparotomy. There was no procedure-related death. Nine patients (11 %) died during the 2-month follow-up period.
conclusionsDiagnostic laparoscopy avoids the morbidity and mortality of laparotomy in chronically ill patients, and reduces the rate of misdiagnosis of other abdominal conditions and unnecessary long-term therapy. Diagnostic laparoscopy and tissue sampling is a viable and reliable strategy in patients with suspected abdominal tuberculosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.