ReviewTherapeutic advances in infectious disease
A step-by-step guide to implementing a multidisciplinary endocarditis team.
Review in Therapeutic advances in infectious disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current Management of Infective Endocarditis: A Narrative Review Focused on Unmet Clinical Needs and the Multidisciplinary Approach.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- A national study of infective endocarditis models of care in Australia.Internal medicine journal · 2025Article
- Frame Shift: Focusing on Harm Reduction and Shared Decision Making for People Who Use Drugs Hospitalized With Infections.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Article
- Multidisciplinary Teams for the Management of Infective Endocarditis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Open forum infectious diseases · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the last several years multiple studies, primarily from European centers have demonstrated the clinical and outcomes benefits of multidisciplinary endocarditis teams. Despite this literature, adoption of this approach to patient care has been slower in the United States. While there is literature outlining the optimal composition of an endocarditis team, there is little information to guide providers as they attempt to transform practice from a fragmented, disjointed process to an efficient, collaborative care model. In this review, the authors will outline the steps they took to create and implement a successful multidisciplinary endocarditis team at the University of Michigan. In conjunction with existing data, this piece can be used as a resource for clinicians seeking to improve the care of patients with endocarditis at their institutions.
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.