ArticleScientific reports2023
Pretreatment CT differential diagnosis of tuberculous peritonitis from peritoneal carcinomatosis of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Great peritoneal pretenders: imaging mimickers of peritoneal carcinomatosis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Cross-Sectional Imaging of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease: Diagnostic Pearls and Pitfalls on CT and MR.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Investigating the causes and pattern of peritoneal involvement in CT scan and comparison with ultrasound findings in peritoneal conditions: A two-center, cross-sectional study.Health science reports · 2024Article
- ED diagnosis of peritoneal carcinomatosis.Emergency radiology · 2024Article
- Enduring Dilemmas in Gastroenterology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Diagnostic value of serum CA125 combined with PET/CT in ovarian cancer and tuberculous peritonitis in female patients.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Delayed diagnosis of female genital tuberculosis (FGTB) can lead to inappropriate treatment and unnecessary surgical procedures rather than standard anti-TB medication. We tried to evaluate the use of computed tomography (CT) imaging to differentiate TB peritonitis from peritoneal carcinomatosis of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC). We investigated women who underwent CT to distinguish between TB peritonitis and peritoneal carcinomatosis of AEOC. We evaluated various CT imaging features to identify differences between the two diseases. In addition, we performed univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to identify the independent imaging parameters associated with TB peritonitis and evaluated the diagnostic performance of the combined imaging parameters. We also performed the histopathological analysis of the available salpinx specimens of TB peritonitis. We included 25 women with TB peritonitis and 34 women with peritoneal carcinomatosis of AEOC. A multivariate analysis of the discriminant CT imaging features between the two diseases revealed that changes in fallopian tubes and peritoneal micronodules were independent parameters associated with TB peritonitis (p ≤ 0.012). Combining the two imaging parameters showed an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.855, a sensitivity of 88.0%, and a specificity of 67.7% for differentiating TB peritonitis from peritoneal carcinomatosis. Furthermore, changes in fallopian tubes were correlated with histopathological abnormalities in salpinx specimens. Pretreatment CT evaluation with useful imaging features could help differentiate TB peritonitis from peritoneal carcinomatosis of AEOC.
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.