ArticleCureus2025
Understanding the Utility of Automation for Diagnosing Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis and Its Variants.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is the most frequent bacterial infection in cirrhotic patients with ascites, marking early hepatic decompensation. Variants of SBP are classified based on ascitic fluid polymorphonuclear neutrophil count and culture positivity.
methodsA prospective cross-sectional study was conducted from 2014 to 2016 at a tertiary care hospital in South India. The study compared the diagnostic yield of conventional versus automated culture methods for detecting SBP and its variants. Ascitic fluid samples were cultured using conventional culture and/or automated culture methods, based on the clinician's preference.
resultsAmong 190 patients with ascites, automated culture was performed in 175 patients (92%) and conventional in 82 patients (43%). An automated blood culture system detected pathogens in 70 patients (40%), whereas conventional methods were positive in only eight cases (9.8%). After excluding contaminants, the overall culture positivity was seen in 45 patients (23.1%).
conclusionAutomated culture systems significantly outperform conventional methods in detecting bacterial pathogens in ascitic fluid, with a fourfold higher detection rate. Their ability to isolate fastidious organisms underscores their utility as the preferred first-line diagnostic tool in suspected SBP.
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.