ArticleGastroenterology research2026
Comparison of
Article in Gastroenterology research, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) remains a life-threatening complication in patients with cirrhosis and ascites. Preventing recurrence is a major clinical objective, and prophylactic antibiotic strategies are routinely implemented. Ciprofloxacin and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) are two widely used alternatives to norfloxacin, especially in regions where norfloxacin is not available. However, comparative data on adverse outcomes such as Methods: A total of 6,948 patient encounters were analyzed. Ciprofloxacin was used in 75.4% (5,236) and TMP-SMX in 24.6% (1,712) of cases. Results: CDI occurred in 0.4% (21) of ciprofloxacin recipients and 0.6% (11) of TMP-SMX recipients. Mortality rates were 0.3% and 0.6%, respectively. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model showed no statistically significant difference in CDI risk (odds ratio (OR) = 0.623; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.299-1.296; P = 0.206) or mortality (OR = 0.539; 95% CI: 0.158-1.844; P = 0.320). These findings suggest no statistically significant difference in adverse outcomes between the two regimens, although low event rates may have limited the statistical power of the analysis. Conclusion: No statistically significant differences in CDI incidence or all-cause mortality were observed between prophylactic regimens. However, low event rates resulted in wide confidence intervals, limiting precision and precluding conclusions regarding comparative effectiveness or equivalence. Larger studies are warranted to validate these observations.
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.