ArticleCureus2024
Comparative Analysis of Demographic and Clinical Findings in Spontaneous, Peritoneal Dialysis-Related, and Secondary Bacterial Peritonitis.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis due toRevista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2025Pooled it
- Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background This study aims to contribute to peritonitis management strategies by comparing the demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics of patients diagnosed with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis (PDrP), and secondary peritonitis. Methods This study included 86 patients diagnosed with peritonitis between 2016 and 2022. Patients were categorized and compared as SBP, PDrP, and secondary peritonitis. Results SBP was diagnosed in 36% of patients, secondary peritonitis in 36% and PDrP in 28%. The mean age of patients with PDrP is 43.71 ± 14.74, which is significantly lower compared to those with SBP and secondary peritonitis (p<0.001). Patients with hypertension (HT), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and those undergoing dialysis most commonly have PDrP whereas those without HT, without CKD, and not undergoing dialysis are most often diagnosed with secondary peritonitis (p=0.002, p<0.001, p<0.001). In peritoneal fluid cultures, the growth of Gram-positive bacteria was most commonly identified in patients with PDrP, while the growth of Gram-negative bacteria was most frequently seen in patients with secondary peritonitis (p=0.018). CRP levels and sedimentation rates were found to be higher in patients with secondary peritonitis (p<0.001, p=0.003). Conclusion The distinct characteristics observed across different types of peritonitis underscore the importance of tailored approaches to diagnosis and treatment. Parameters such as CRP levels, sedimentation rates, and patient age could serve as valuable indicators in discerning between various types of peritonitis. When selecting empirical antibiotic therapy, it's crucial to consider coverage for Gram-positive pathogens in cases of PDrP and Gram-negative pathogens in secondary peritonitis.
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.