ArticleBMC gastroenterology2022
Utility of ascitic tumor markers and adenosine deaminase for differential diagnosis of tuberculous peritonitis and peritoneal carcinomatosis.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Diagnostic Role of Tumor and Inflammatory Biomarkers in Ascitic Fluid: A Systematic Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Pooled it
- Development and validation of a prediction model for tuberculous peritoneal effusion.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA): Origin, Role in Oncology, and Concentrations in Serum and Peritoneal Fluid.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Predicting Peritoneal Carcinomatosis in Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: The Significance of Tumor Markers in the Peritoneal Washing.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2024Article
- Enduring Dilemmas in Gastroenterology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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
Abstract
backgroundDifferential diagnosis between tuberculous peritonitis and peritoneal carcinomatosis remains challenging in clinical practice; thus, in-patients diagnosed with tuberculous peritonitis or peritoneal carcinomatosis were retrospectively enrolled, and diagnostic values of ascitic tumor markers and adenosine deaminase were determined.
methodsConsecutive patients diagnosed with tuberculous peritonitis or peritoneal carcinomatosis were retrospectively enrolled. The pertinent data of 169 patients enrolled were collected.
resultsA panel of ascitic tumor makers (CEA, CA15-3, CA19-9) had high specificity (96.83%) and accuracy (94.67%) in the differentiation of peritoneal carcinomatosis from tuberculous peritonitis; and ascitic ADA was a good discriminator between these patients, with an accuracy of 91.72%. Combined use of ascitic tumor makers and ADA (ascitic ADA < 22.5 IU/L or ascitic CEA > 3.65 ng/mL or CA15-3 > 42.70 U/mL or CA19-9 > 25.10 U/mL) performed high sensitivity (99.06%) and accuracy (94.08%) for the diagnosis of peritoneal carcinomatosis. In addition, combined ascitic ADA and tumor marker (positive ascitic tumor makers and ADA < 22.50 IU/L) had 100% of the specificity in diagnosing peritoneal carcinomatosis.
conclusionsCombined use of ascitic tumor markers and adenosine deaminase showed excellent efficiency in the differential diagnosis between tuberculous peritonitis and peritoneal carcinomatosis, thus these two simple and cost-effective parameters should be determined when tuberculous peritonitis or peritoneal carcinomatosis was suspected in clinic practice.
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.