ArticleInfectious diseases & clinical microbiology2025
Clinical Outcomes and Microbiological Profiles of Patients with Culture-Confirmed Peritonitis.
Article in Infectious diseases & clinical microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polymicrobial PID Presenting as Primary Peritonitis in a Young Immunocompetent Patient-Case Report and Disease Perspectives.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review
- Clinical Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients withJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to identify pathogenic microorganisms and resistance profiles, clinical outcomes, and mortality-related risk factors in patients with culture-confirmed peritonitis. Materials and Methods: This single-center, retrospective study included patients aged ≥18 years who were followed up with a culture-confirmed diagnosis of peritonitis. Results: Of the 134 patients, 54.5% (n=73) were male, and the mean age was 57.9 ± 16.1 years. Forty-three patients (32.1%) had primary peritonitis and 91 (67.9%) had secondary peritonitis. A total of 157 pathogens were isolated from 134 cases. The most common microorganisms were Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of demographic characteristics, clinical features, and laboratory parameters for clinical outcomes in patients with peritonitis. Patients with secondary perforation-related peritonitis require close monitoring for clinical changes. Gram-positive bacteria and sensitive enteric bacilli for primary peritonitis and ESBL-producing Gram-negative bacteria for secondary peritonitis should be included in empirical treatment selection. Additionally, we recommend considering antifungal agents for severely ill patients with 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.