Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38730167›Full record

ArticleBritish dental journal2024

New evidence calls into question NICE's endocarditis prevention guidance.

Martin Thornhill, Bernard Prendergast, Mark Dayer, Ash Frisby, Peter Lockhart, Larry M Baddour

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British dental journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A genome-widebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

6 authors.

Martin ThornhillProfessor of Translational Research in Dentistry, Unit of Oral and Maxillofacial Medicine, Surgery and Pathology, School of Clinical Dentistry, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. m.thornhill@sheffield.ac.uk.
Bernard PrendergastProfessor of Cardiology, Guy´s and St Thomas´ Hospital, London and Chair of Cardiology, Cleveland Clinic, London, UK.
Mark DayerProfessor and Consultant Cardiologist, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Mater Private Network, Dublin, Ireland.
Ash FrisbyPatient Advocate, London, UK.
Peter LockhartResearch Professor, Department of Oral Medicine/Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Atrium Health´s Carolinas Medical Centre, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA; Adjunct Professor, Department of Otolaryngology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, North Carolina, USA.
Larry M BaddourProfessor Emeritus, Division of Public Health, Infectious Diseases and Occupational Health, Departments of Medicine and Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2008, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommended against the use of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before invasive dental procedures (IDPs) to prevent infective endocarditis (IE). They did so because of lack of AP efficacy evidence and adverse reaction concerns. Consequently, NICE concluded AP was not cost-effective and should not be recommended. In 2015, NICE reviewed its guidance and continued to recommend against AP. However, it subsequently changed its wording to 'antibiotic prophylaxis against infective endocarditis is not routinely recommended'. The lack of explanation of what constituted routinely (and not routinely), or how to manage non-routine patients, caused enormous confusion and NICE remained out of step with all major international guideline committees who continued to recommend AP for those at high risk.Since the 2015 guideline review, new data have confirmed an association between IDPs and subsequent IE and demonstrated AP efficacy in reducing IE risk following IDPs in high-risk patients. New evidence also shows that in high-risk patients, the IE risk following IDPs substantially exceeds any adverse reaction risk, and that AP is therefore highly cost-effective. Given the new evidence, a NICE guideline review would seem appropriate so that UK high-risk patients can receive the same protection afforded high-risk patients in the rest of the world.

Indexed as

Antibiotic ProphylaxisEndocarditisPractice Guidelines as TopicCost-Benefit AnalysisDental CareHumansUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID38730167
PMCPMC11087242

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.