ArticleClinical and translational gastroenterology2025
A National Survey Shows a Dilemma Toward Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis Prophylaxis Among US-Based Hepatology Professionals.
Article in Clinical and translational gastroenterology, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSpontaneous bacterial peritonitis prophylaxis (SBPPr)-related practices are evolving, with recent studies showing almost half of potential subjects not being initiated on it. Determine practice dilemmas regarding SBPPr among US-based hepatology providers.
methodsA questionnaire regarding primary and secondary SBPPr using quantitative and qualitative (open-ended) approaches was sent to US-based hepatology providers electronically.
resultsA total of 113 clinicians (86% physicians, 73% academic centers) responded. 54% started Primary and 72% secondary SBPPr in 50% of eligible patients. However, the issues related to antimicrobial resistance and ineffectiveness lead to SBPPr usage variations and restrictions on a patient-specific basis. Most respondents (>70%) would withdraw/not initiate SBPPr with data regarding ineffectiveness and harms. Open-ended answers showed that most believed newer trials to reduce reliance on weaker older evidence are needed. DISCUSSION: A survey of US-based hepatologists demonstrates a major dilemma between usual care of initiating SBPPr versus not initiating/withdrawing SBPPr that needs newer randomized trials.
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.