Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16207989›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2005

Contribution of systematic serological testing in diagnosis of infective endocarditis.

D Raoult, J P Casalta, H Richet, M Khan, E Bernit, C Rovery, S Branger, F Gouriet, G Imbert, E Bothello and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

84 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 205 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Molecular methods for diagnosis of infective endocarditis.Infectious disease clinics of North America · 2002
    Guideline
  3. Review
  4. 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis : Statement of endorsement by the NVVC Full version.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Make Modern Microbiology Matter More in the 2023 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines for the Management of Infective Endocarditis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Uncommon pathogens causing infective endocarditis.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. External Validation of the 2023 Duke-International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases Diagnostic Criteria for Infective Endocarditis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Novel Diagnostic Methods for Infective Endocarditis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. A Dual-Pathogen Mitral Valve Endocarditis Caused byPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  18. Updates in Culture-Negative Endocarditis.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

D RaoultUnité des Rickettsies, Hôpital de la Timone, Faculté de Médicine, Université de la Méditerranée, 13385 Marseille cedex 05, France. Didier.Raoult@medecine.univ-mrs.fr
J P Casalta
H Richet
M Khan
E Bernit
C Rovery
S Branger
F Gouriet
G Imbert
E Bothello
F Collart
G Habib
Hôpital de la Timone · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite progress with diagnostic criteria, the type and timing of laboratory tests used to diagnose infective endocarditis (IE) have not been standardized. This is especially true with serological testing. Patients with suspected IE were evaluated by a standard diagnostic protocol. This protocol mandated an evaluation of the patients according to the modified Duke criteria and used a battery of laboratory investigations, including three sets of blood cultures and systematic serological testing for Coxiella burnetii, Bartonella spp., Aspergillus spp., Legionella pneumophila, and rheumatoid factor. In addition, cardiac valvular materials obtained at surgery were subjected to a comprehensive diagnostic evaluation, including PCR aimed at documenting the presence of fastidious organisms. The study included 1,998 suspected cases of IE seen over a 9-year period from April 1994 to December 2004 in Marseilles, France. They were evaluated prospectively. A total of 427 (21.4%) patients were diagnosed as having definite endocarditis. Possible endocarditis was diagnosed in 261 (13%) cases. The etiologic diagnosis was established in 397 (93%) cases by blood cultures, serological tests, and examination of the materials obtained from cardiac valves, respectively, in 348 (81.5%), 34 (8%), and 15 (3.5%) definite cases of IE. Concomitant infection with streptococci and C. burnetii was seen in two cases. The results of serological and rheumatoid factor evaluation reclassified 38 (8.9%) possible cases of IE as definite cases. Systematic serological testing improved the performance of the modified Duke criteria and was instrumental in establishing the etiologic diagnosis in 8% (34/427) cases of IE.

Indexed as

Antibodies, BacterialBacteriaBacterial InfectionsBloodCulture MediaEndocarditis, BacterialHeart ValvesHumansRheumatoid FactorSerologic TestsAntibodies, BacterialCulture MediaRheumatoid Factor

Identifiers

PMID16207989
PMCPMC1248503
OpenAlexW2108346639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.