ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Contemporary Features and Management of Endocarditis.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of clinical frailty in predicting mortality following surgery for infective endocarditis.Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 2026Article
- Infective Endocarditis and Complications; Surgical Indications and Management: An Integrative Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Endocarditis: Rising Incidence in the Post-COVID-19 Pandemic Era: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
- Multimodality Imaging Diagnosis in Infective Endocarditis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Infective endocarditis is a rare but devastating disease. Morbidity and mortality rates have failed to improve despite new technological advances. The disease has evolved over time with new significant populations at risk-most notably those with prosthetic valves or implantable cardiovascular devices. These devices pose new challenges for achieving a timely and accurate diagnosis of infection. While the modified Duke criteria is accepted as the gold standard for diagnosing native valve endocarditis, it has been shown to have significantly inferior sensitivity when it comes to identifying infections related to right-heart endocarditis, prosthetic valves, and indwelling cardiac devices. Additionally, prosthetic valves and cardiovascular implantable electronic devices can exhibit shadowing and artifact, rendering transthoracic echocardiography and transesophageal echocardiography results inconclusive or even normal. Having a keen awareness of the varying clinical presentations, as well as emerging valvular imaging modalities such as F-fluorodeoxyglucose cardiac positron-emission tomography plus computed tomography, promises to improve the evaluation and diagnosis of infective endocarditis. However, indications for appropriate use of these studies and guidance on modern clinical management are still needed.
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.