ArticleScientific reports2024
Evaluating the Duke Criteria for infectious endocarditis in a single-center retrospective study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Routine urinalysis for early clinical assessment in patients with vegetation-like echocardiographic findings.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Changing Epidemiology, Healthcare-Associated Infections, and Outcomes in Infective Endocarditis: A Five-Year Retrospective Study from a Tertiary Cardiovascular Center.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Detection of Valve Vegetations in Native and Prosthetic Valves using Echocardiographic Radiomics and Deep Learning on Transesophageal Echocardiography Images.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2026Article
- Fewer Minor Modified Duke Criteria on Admission Are Associated with Worse 90-Day Mortality in Patients with Confirmed Infective Endocarditis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Should Microhematuria Be Incorporated into the 2023 Duke-International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases Minor Immunological Criteria?Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Duke Criteria have shaped the way infectious endocarditis (IE) is diagnosed in the last 30 years. This study aims to evaluate their current validity and importance in the diagnostic of IE. A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 163 consecutive patients who presented at the University Hospital in Ulm (Germany) with clinical suspicion of IE between 2009 and 2019. With patients' medical records we differentiated between definitive endocarditis (DIE), possible endocarditis (PIE) and rejected endocarditis (RIE) and assessed the validity of the Duke Criteria in comparison to the final discharge diagnosis. We then tried to identify new potential parameters as an addition to the current valid Duke Criteria. The validity of the Duke Criteria improves with the length of hospitalization (especially cardiac imaging criterion, RIE 33.3%, PIE 31.6% and DIE 41.9%, p = 0.622 at admission and RIE 53.3%, PIE 68.4%, DIE 92.2%, p < 0.001 at discharge). At admission, overall sensitivity and specificity were respectively 29.5 and 91.2% in the DIE group. At discharge, sensitivity in the DIE group rose to 77.5% and specificity decreased to 79.4%. Of all screened metrics, microhematuria (p = 0.124), leukocyturia, (p = 0.075), younger age (p = 0.042) and the lack of rheumatoid disease (p = 0.011) showed a difference in incidence (p < 0.2) when comparing DIE and RIE group. In multivariate regression only microhematuria qualified as a potential sixth minor criterion at admission. Even with the latest technological breakthroughs our findings suggest that the Duke Criteria continue to hold value in the accurate assessment of IE. Future efforts must shorten the time until diagnosis.
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.