ArticleHepatology international2024
Clinical evaluation of droplet digital pcr for suspected ascites infection in patients with liver cirrhosis.
Article in Hepatology international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDroplet digital PCR (ddPCR) is increasingly used in diagnosing clinical pathogens, but its effectiveness in cirrhosis patients with suspected ascites infection remains uncertain.
methodsThe diagnostic performance of ddPCR was assessed in 305 ascites samples, utilizing culture and clinical composite standards. The quantitative value and potential clinical impact of ddPCR were further analyzed in patients with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.
resultsWith culture standards, ddPCR demonstrated a sensitivity of 86.5% and specificity of 83.2% for bacterial or fungal detection. After adjustment of clinical composite criteria, specificity increased to 96.4%. Better diagnostic performance for all types of targeted pathogens, particularly fungi, was observed with ddPCR compared to culture, and more polymicrobial infections were detected (30.4% versus 5.7%, p < 0.001). Pathogen loads detected by ddPCR correlated with white blood cell count in ascites and blood, as well as polymorphonuclear cell (PMN) count in ascites, reflecting infection status rapidly. A positive clinical impact of 55.8% (43/77) was observed for ddPCR, which was more significant among patients with PMN count ≤ 250/mm
conclusionsddPCR, with appropriate panel design, has advantages in pathogen detection and clinical management of ascites infection, especially for patients with fungal and polymicrobial infections. Patients with atypical spontaneous bacterial peritonitis benefited more from ddPCR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38683274What 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.