ArticleWorld journal of hepatology2024
Sensitivity of diagnosis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is higher with the automated cell count method.
Article in World journal of hepatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictors of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis among cirrhotic patients with ascites in Dodoma, Tanzania: a cross-sectional study.Future science OA · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Leucocyte Esterase Reagent Strips for Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis in Cirrhosis With Ascites.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Epidemiology, Predictors of Antimicrobial Resistance and Empiric Treatment Strategies for Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis in Cirrhosis: A Multicentre SBP-INDIA Study.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2026Article
- Exploring the next frontier in diagnosing spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.World journal of hepatology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is one of the most important complications of patients with liver cirrhosis entailing high morbidity and mortality. Making an accurate early diagnosis of this infection is key in the outcome of these patients. The current definition of SBP is based on studies performed more than 40 years ago using a manual technique to count the number of polymorphs in ascitic fluid (AF). There is a lack of data comparing the traditional cell count method with a current automated cell counter. Moreover, current international guidelines do not mention the type of cell count method to be employed and around half of the centers still rely on the traditional manual method.
aimTo compare the accuracy of polymorph count on AF to diagnose SBP between the traditional manual cell count method and a modern automated cell counter against SBP cases fulfilling gold standard criteria: Positive AF culture and signs/symptoms of peritonitis.
methodsRetrospective analysis including two cohorts: Cross-sectional (cohort 1) and case-control (cohort 2), of patients with decompensated cirrhosis and ascites. Both cell count methods were conducted simultaneously. Positive SBP cases had a pathogenic bacteria isolated on AF and signs/symptoms of peritonitis.
resultsA total of 137 cases with 5 positive-SBP, and 85 cases with 33 positive-SBP were included in cohort 1 and 2, respectively. Positive-SBP cases had worse liver function in both cohorts. The automated method showed higher sensitivity than the manual cell count: 80%
conclusionThe automated cell count method should be preferred over the manual method to diagnose SBP because of its higher sensitivity. SBP definition, using the automated method, as polymorph cell count ≥ 0.2 cells × 10
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.