ArticleOpen heart2022
Modified Duke/European Society of Cardiology 2015 clinical criteria for infective endocarditis: time for an update?
Article in Open heart, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiac Anesthesia Intraoperative Interpretation Accuracy of Transesophageal Echocardiograms: A Review of the Current Literature and Meta-Analysis.Vascular health and risk management · 2023Pooled it
- Oxidative Stress in Aortic Valves Associated with Infective Endocarditis: A Report on Three Cases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The importance of etiologic factor identification in patients with infective endocarditis - results of tertiary center analysis (2015-2023).Cardiology journal · 2024Article
- The Assessment of Antimicrobial Resistance in Gram-Negative and Gram-Positive Infective Endocarditis: A Multicentric Retrospective Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Early surgery determines prognosis in patients with infective endocarditis: outcome in patients managed by an Endocarditis Team-a prospective cohort study.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2022Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe diagnosis of infective endocarditis (IE) is based on the modified Duke/European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2015 clinical criteria. The sensitivity of the criteria is unknown in South Africa, but high rates of blood culture negative endocarditis (BCNIE), coupled with a change in the clinical features of IE, may limit the sensitivity.
methodsThe Tygerberg Endocarditis Cohort study prospectively enrolled patients with IE between November 2019 and June 2021. A standardised protocol for organism detection, with management of patients by an Endocarditis Team, was employed. Patients with definite IE by pathological criteria were analysed to determine the sensitivity of the current clinical criteria.
resultsEighty consecutive patients with IE were included of which 45 (56.3%) had definite IE by pathological criteria. In patients with definite IE by pathological criteria, 26/45 (57.8%) of patients were classified as definite IE by clinical criteria. BCNIE was present in 25/45 (55.6%) of patients and less than three minor clinical criteria were present in 32/45 (75.6%) of patients. The elevation of
conclusionThe sensitivity of the modified Duke/ESC 2015 clinical criteria is lower than expected in patients with IE in South Africa, primarily due to the high rates of
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.