ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2023
Risk Factors of Gastrointestinal Perforation with a Poor Prognosis.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Evaluation of predictive factors for morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing surgery for peptic ulcer perforation.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2026Article
- Development of a Prognostic Model for Prolonged Hospital Stay After Gastrointestinal Perforation Surgery.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical and Economic Insights Into Surgery for Colonic Diverticular Perforation: A Long-Term Observational Cohort Study.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of early enteral nutrition support in patients undergoing gastrointestinal perforation repair surgery within the enhanced recovery.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Prognostic risk factors in upper gastrointestinal perforation: the role of body composition parameters.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Risk Prediction of Postoperative Complications in Lower Gastrointestinal Perforation Based on Preoperative Serum Cholinesterase Levels.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2025Article
- C-reactive Protein/Albumin Ratio Predicts Short-term Postoperative Outcomes and Intraabdominal Abscess Formation in Colorectal Perforation.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2024Article
- Effect of Preoperative Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index on Prognosis in Patients after Surgery for Lower Gastrointestinal Perforation.Annals of nutrition & metabolism · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite medical progress, mortality from gastrointestinal perforation was relatively high. Our study's objective was to identify risk factors associated with a poor prognosis for gastrointestinal perforation. Methods: Patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal perforation at the Longchuan County People's Hospital between January 2019 and February 2022 were the subject of a retrospective analysis of their laboratory data. Patients were grouped based on length of hospital stay, septic shock, and mortality. Results: A total of 240 patients participated in our study. Using univariate and multivariate analysis, we identified several risk factors for gastrointestinal perforation associated with a dismal prognosis. Lower digestive tract perforation (OR=2.418, 95% CI 1.119-5.227, P=0.025), low total protein (OR=0.934, 95% CI 0.879-0.992, P=0.026) and low hemoglobin (OR=0.985, 95% CI 0.971-0.999, P=0.039) were linked to a longer length of stay, especially hemoglobin (OR=0.978, 95% CI 0.966-0.991, P=0.001) in upper digestive tract. High ratio of neutrophils to lymphocytes (NLR) (OR=1.043, 95% CI 1.012-1.076, P=0.007), high lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) (OR=2.158, 95% CI 1.495-3.115, P<0.001) and low prognostic nutrition index (PNI) (OR=0.814, 95% CI 0.751-0.833, P<0.001) predicted septic shock. In upper digestive tract, PLR (OR=1.001, 95% CI 1.000-1.002, P=0.067), LMR (OR=2.160, 95% CI 1.440-3.240, P<0.001) and PNI (OR=0.843, 95% CI 0.767-0.926, P<0.001) were risk factors for septic shock, and total protein (OR=0.796, 95% CI 0.686-0.923, P=0.003) was a risk factor for septic shock in lower digestive tract. High NLR (OR=1.056, 95% CI 1.019-1.093, P=0.003), high LMR (OR=1.760, 95% CI 1.177-2.632, P=0.006) and low PNI (OR=0.832, 95% CI 0.754-0.918, P<0.001) were the risk factors of mortality. In subgroup analysis of perforation site, albumin (OR=0.820, 95% CI 0.719-0.934, P=0.003) and LMR (OR=1.506, 95% CI 1.069-2.123, P=0.019) were risk factors for mortality in upper digestive tract and PNI (OR=0.636, 95% CI 0.445-0.908, P=0.013) was a risk factor for mortality in lower digestive tract. Conclusion: Our research found that the perforation site, total protein, albumin, hemoglobin, NLR, LMR, PLR and PNI were risk factors for gastrointestinal perforation with a poor prognosis.
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.