ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2025
Comparison of the 2015 and 2023 Duke-European Society of Cardiology Criteria Among Patients With Suspected Infective Endocarditis.
Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of data routinely collected by Australian hospitals for identifying infective endocarditis, causative organisms and clinical outcomes: a diagnostic accuracy study.Internal medicine journal · 2026Article
- Mind the Gap: Inadequate Performance of Embolic Risk Scores in Infective Endocarditis.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Delayed Diagnosis of Infective Endocarditis-Analysis of an Endocarditis Network.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Prediction Scores Identifying Patients at High Risk of Endocarditis in Enterococcal Bacteremia.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Infective Endocarditis and Antimicrobial Timing: A Case for Delay?Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Performance of Different Versions of Duke Criteria in Diagnosing Infective Endocarditis in Patients With Intracardiac Prosthetic Materials.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Article
- Evaluation of Different Versions of the Duke Criteria for the Diagnosis of Infective Endocarditis Among Patients With Enterococcal Bacteremia; a Multicenter Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Predictors of Persistent Fever Among Patients With Suspected Infective Endocarditis: Think Outside the box.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025Article
- Role of the New Physical Examination Minor Criterion (New Heart Murmur) for the Diagnosis of Infective Endocarditis.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Treatment for Cardiac Device Infections.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiagnosing infective endocarditis (IE) poses a significant challenge. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the 2015 and 2023 Duke clinical criteria introduced by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) in a cohort of patients suspected of having IE.
methodsConducted retrospectively at 2 Swiss university hospitals between 2014 and 2023, the study involved patients with suspected IE. Each hospital's endocarditis team categorized cases as either IE or not IE. The performance of each iteration of the Duke-ESC clinical criteria was assessed based on the agreement between definite IE and the diagnoses made by the endocarditis team.
resultsAmong the 3127 episodes of suspected IE, 1177 (38%) were confirmed to have IE. Using the 2015 Duke-ESC criteria, 707 (23%) episodes were deemed definite IE, with 696 (98%) receiving a final IE diagnosis. With the 2023 Duke-ESC criteria, 855 (27%) episodes were classified as definite IE, of which 813 (95%) were confirmed as IE. The 2015 and 2023 Duke-ESC criteria categorized 1039 (33%) and 1034 (33%) episodes, respectively, as possible IE. Sensitivity for the 2015 Duke-ESC and the 2023 Duke-ESC criteria was calculated at 59% (95% confidence interval, 56%-62%), and 69% (66%-72%), respectively, with specificity at 99% (99%-100%), and 98% (97%-98%), respectively.
conclusionsThe 2023 Duke-ESC criteria demonstrated significant improvements in sensitivity compared to the 2015 version, although one-third of episodes were classified as possible IE by both versions.
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.