SynthesisMedical sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Diagnostic Accuracy of Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin in Peritoneal Effluent and Ascitic Fluid for Early Detection of Peritonitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeritonitis in peritoneal dialysis and cirrhosis remains common and leads to morbidity. Neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) has been evaluated as a rapid adjunctive biomarker.
methodsFollowing PRISMA-DTA and PROSPERO registration (CRD420251105563), we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to 31 December 2024, and ran an update on 30 June 2025 (no additional eligible studies). Diagnostic accuracy studies measuring NGAL in peritoneal/ascitic fluid against guideline reference standards were included. When 2 × 2 data were not reported, we reconstructed cell counts from published metrics using a prespecified, tolerance-bounded algorithm (two studies). Accuracy was synthesized with a bivariate random effects (Reitsma) model; 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were used to express heterogeneity; small-study effects were assessed by Deeks' test.
resultsThirteen studies were included qualitatively and ten were entered into a meta-analysis (573 cases; 833 controls). The pooled sensitivity was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-0.97) and specificity was 0.86 (0.70-0.94); likelihood ratios were LR+ ≈7.0 and LR- 0.06. Between-study variability was concentrated on specificity: the PI for a new setting was 0.75-0.98 for sensitivity and 0.23-0.99 for specificity. Deeks' test showed evidence of small-study effects in the primary analysis; assay/platform and thresholding contributed materially to heterogeneity.
conclusionsNGAL in peritoneal/ascitic fluid demonstrates high pooled sensitivity but variable specificity across settings. Given the wide prediction intervals and the signal for small-study effects, NGAL should be interpreted as an adjunct to guideline-based criteria-not as a stand-alone rule-out test. Standardization of pre-analytics and assay-specific, locally verified thresholds, together with prospective multicenter validations and impact/economic evaluations, are needed to define its clinical role.
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.