ReviewPakistan journal of medical sciences
Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography vs transoesophageal echocardiography for infective endocarditis - A meta-analysis.
Review in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computed tomography manifestations and pathological features of intra-abdominal desmoplastic small round cell tumor.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- A Comparison of the Diagnostic Value of Multiorgan Point-of-care Ultrasound between High-risk and Medium-to-low-risk Pulmonary Embolism CasesCurrent medical imaging · 2025Article
- Computed Tomography in Infectious Endocarditis.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the comparative diagnostic accuracy of cardiac computed tomography (CT) and transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) for detecting infective endocarditis. Methods: Original publications published in English language before July, 2021 were thoroughly search in PubMed, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Google Scholar literature databases. Studies were included if they used CT and/or TEE as an index test, presented data on valvular complications related to infective endocarditis, and used surgical findings as to the reference standard. Results: Literature screening identified fifteen studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis showed that CT sensitivity for detecting valvular abscesses was higher than that of TEE [0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82 to 0.94; 11 studies involving 842 subjects) versus 0.74 (95%CI: 0.65 to 0.84) P = 0.015; 12 studies involving 917 subjects]. TEE showed statistically significantly greater sensitivity than CT for detecting valvular vegetation [0.91 (95% CI: 0.84 to 0.97, 11 studies involving 971 subjects) versus 0.80 (95% CI: 0.69 to 0.82), 12 studies involving 915 subjects, P =0.019. In case of leaflet detection, TEE showed statistically significantly higher sensitivity than CT (0.76 vs 0.46, P =0.010). Conclusion: CT performs statistically significantly better than TEE for detecting abscesses while TEE provides statistically significant superior results for detecting vegetation. There is a need for well-designed prospective studies to further corroborate these findings.
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.