Talk:Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Medicine: Gastroenterology Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Gastroenterology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

note

doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01485.x - MELD predicts SBP risk. JFW | T@lk 10:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conn

According to doi:10.3748/wjg.15.1042, Conn was the first to use the term SBP (PMID 14138877) but there had been previous reports. JFW | T@lk 10:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Error

This article is not talking about SPB, rather the contents is currently a general article about liver failure. SPB is a very important complication that is worried about when a patient presents with ascities and I think this article is definitely worth working on.Fuj (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was overwritten with some sort of other content. I got rid of it. JFW | T@lk 19:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Madhero88 (talk · contribs) asked me to comment on the current state of the article. I felt some references were probably too weak from a WP:MEDRS perspective. The WJG reviews are fairly useful. I would still like to recommend PMID 19160207 (Cochrane Review for antibiotics). PMID 18417037 is a recent review that is potentially more authoritative, coming from Pere Gines. JFW | T@lk 19:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]