Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37792178›Full record

ReviewInfection2023

Blood culture-negative infective endocarditis: are we looking hard enough?

Frazer Kirk, Natasha Marcella Vaselli

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Infection, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Five-year cardiovascular outcomes following COVID-19-associated carditis.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Frazer KirkGold Coast University Hospital, Southport, QLD, Australia. frazer.kirk@my.jcu.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6655-1778
Natasha Marcella VaselliGold Coast University Hospital, Southport, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0220-9249
Griffith University · AUUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionInfective endocarditis is a common cardiac condition, with significant mortality. Blood culture-negative endocarditis is an important subgroup of endocarditis that holds significant morbidity and mortality.

methodWe performed an updated review of the literature. We searched the databases of Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBAS and Scopus for the latest clinical guidelines and literature on blood culture negative endocarditis to provide a narrative synthesis of the literature.

resultsThere is significant heterogeneity in causes and complications of culture-negative infective endocarditis, due to an insensitivity in available clinical diagnostic pathways. Despite significant advances in diagnostic tools, the diagnostic criterion for infective endocarditis (the modified Duke's criterion) remains insensitive to the detection of culture-negative infective endocarditis.

conclusionThe natural history of BCNE and our diagnostic resources are changing. It is time our criterion did too. Remembering, BCNE holds significant morbidity and mortality-the absence of organism of culture should not reassure, rather concern clinicians. Every effort should be made to accurately identify organisms.

Indexed as

EndocarditisEndocarditis, BacterialBlood CultureHumansMorbidityBlood culture negative endocarditisInfective endocarditisLiterature review

Identifiers

PMID37792178
PMCPMC10665218
OpenAlexW4387326383

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.