ArticleScientific reports2025
Distribution and drug resistance analysis of pathogens in early-stage digestive tract perforation complicated with peritonitis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To investigate the distribution and drug resistance of pathogens associated with early-stage digestive tract perforation with peritonitis. A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients with digestive tract perforation and peritonitis at Huadu District People's Hospital of Guangzhou from Jan. 2020 to Aug. 2024. The selected patients were divided into two groups: the upper digestive tract (UDT) group and the lower digestive tract (LDT) group. General clinical characteristics and intraoperative secretions culture results were compared and analyzed. The study included 831 patients; 41.28% were in UDT group followed 58.72% in LDT group. 694 strains that isolated comprised 503 Gram-negative bacteria (GNB), 93 g-positive bacteria (GPB) and 98 fungi. Compared to LDT group, the UDT group had a higher positive rate of GPB and fungi but a lower positive rate of GNB. The most common pathogens among GNB were E.coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Klebsiella pneumoniae; among GPB were Streptococcus anginosus, Enterococcus aviae, and Streptococcus constellations; among fungi were Candida albicans, Candida glabrata, and Candida Cruxalis. We further analyzed drug susceptibility results to related antibacterial drugs. The findings from this study have significant implications for guiding initial empirical antimicrobial therapy for patients with digestive tract perforation and 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.