ArticleAlimentary pharmacology & therapeutics2026
Epidemiology, Predictors of Antimicrobial Resistance and Empiric Treatment Strategies for Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis in Cirrhosis: A Multicentre SBP-INDIA Study.
Article in Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics, 2026. 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.
- Epidemiology, Predictors of Antimicrobial Resistance and Empiric Treatment Strategies for Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis in Cirrhosis: A Multicentre SBP-INDIA Study.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2026Article
- Editorial: Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis-Redrawing Empiric Therapy in the Era of Multidrug Resistance.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2026Article
- Editorial: Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis-Redrawing Empiric Therapy in the Era of Multidrug Resistance. Authors' Reply.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
35 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThe rising burden of multidrug-resistant (MDRO) and carbapenem-resistant organisms (CRO) among patients with cirrhosis and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is compromising the effectiveness of standard empiric therapy. This multicentre study evaluated resistance patterns, independent predictors of MDRO and CRO infection, and clinical outcomes to inform risk-based empiric therapy and antimicrobial stewardship in ascitic infections.
methodsWe analysed clinical characteristics and outcomes of hospitalized patients with cirrhosis and culture-positive ascitic fluid infections from 13 centres across India. SBP was defined as ascitic neutrophil count (ANC) ≥ 250/mm
resultsAmong 319 patients (median age 49 years; 79.9% male; 65.8% with acute-on-chronic liver failure), 74.6% of isolates were gram-negative. MDRO and CRO were identified in 53.6% and 24.1% of infections, respectively. Nosocomial/healthcare-associated acquisition, circulatory failure, elevated leukocyte count and SBP prophylaxis were independently associated with MDRO infection, while the nosocomial setting, leukocyte count and circulatory failure predicted CRO infection. MDRO infection was associated with poorer survival. Respiratory failure, liver failure, systemic inflammation, presence of MDRO and higher ACLF severity independently predicted mortality. Nearly one-third of culture-positive infections had ANC < 250/mm
conclusionsThere is a high burden of MDRO and CRO in ascitic infections among hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, with clinically relevant impact on outcomes. Empiric antibiotic selection should be guided by acquisition setting, illness severity and resistance risk factors, with stewardship oversight. Similar outcomes between NNBA and SBP suggest that microbiological evidence, rather than neutrophil count alone, should guide decisions.
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.