ReviewClinical cardiology2009
Prophylaxis to prevent infective endocarditis: to use or not to use?
Review in Clinical cardiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using Nonexpert Online Reports to Enhance Expert Knowledge About Causes of Death in Dental Offices Reported in Scientific Publications: Qualitative and Quantitative Content Analysis and Search Engine Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Tooth extraction in a patient after autologous skeletal myoblast sheet transplantation for severe dilated cardiomyopathy.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2017Article
- Preprocedure prophylaxis against endocarditis among United States pediatric cardiologists.Pediatric cardiology · 2014Article
- A case of endocarditis with cerebral embolism successfully treated with daptomycin.Clinics and practice · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The American Heart Association (AHA) published their revised guidelines in 2007 in which they markedly limited the recommendations for the use of antimicrobial prophylaxis for the prevention of infective endocarditis (IE), except for patients who are at highest risk of adverse outcomes. A recent focused update on valvular heart diseases changed the recommendation for antibiotic use for patients with many underlying heart conditions including mitral valve prolapse (MVP) which were considered as "low risk" heart defects. In this article, we argue that antibiotic prophylaxis should be considered until concrete clinical evidence is provided to dispute against the use of this strategy, especially for patients with MVP. This approach is cost efficient, and provides a chance to prevent a dreadful disease. We have also enlisted 2 clinical cases to support our argument. These are not uncommon clinical scenarios, and emphasize that IE can be fatal in spite of optimum treatment. Patients have the right to make the final decision, and they should be allowed to participate in choosing for or against this approach until adequate clinical evidence is available.
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.