Hemorrhagic Ascites Is Associated With Reduced Survival in Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hemorrhagic ascites is characterized as red blood cell count greater than 10,000/mm 3 . In cirrhosis, ascites is an event of decompensation, and associated with poor prognosis. However, significance of hemorrhagic ascites is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the significance of hemorrhagic ascites in cirrhotic patients. Methods: We conducted a systematic search in Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trial Registry, and Web of Science Core Collection to identify studies till March 2021, which, in patients with cirrhosis, compared outcomes amongst those with hemorrhagic ascites to those with non-hemorrhagic ascites. The primary outcome was 3-year mortality, and secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury (AKI), hepatic encephalopathy (HE), spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) and portal vein thrombosis (PVT). Results: Four studies, with 2,058 cirrhosis patients, were included. Among these, 1,488 patients had non-hemorrhagic ascites and 570 had hemorrhagic ascites. We observed no significant differences in AKI (odds ratio (OR) = 2.55; confidence interval (CI): 0.58 - 11.24), HE (OR = 2.52; CI: 0.70 - 9.05), SBP (OR = 1.66; CI: 0.12 - 22.83) and PVT (OR = 0.99; CI: 0.71 - 1.39). Intensive care unit (ICU) stay was significantly higher in patients with hemorrhagic ascites compared to those with non-hemorrhagic ascites (OR = 1.79; CI: 1.37 - 2.36; I 2 = 56%). Pooled 3-year mortality was significantly higher in those with hemorrhagic (72.5% (CI: 68.2-76.4%)) when compared to non-hemorrhagic ascites (57.9% (CI: 55.2-60.6%)) (OR = 2.17; CI: 1.71 - 2.74) with low heterogeneity (I 2 = 15%). Conclusions: In patients with cirrhosis, hemorrhagic ascites is a poor prognostic marker, which is associated with increased ICU stay and mortality. Prospective studies are needed to further evaluate significance of hemorrhagic ascites in patients with cirrhosis. Gastroenterol Res. 2022;15(1):26-32 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/gr1485
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".