ArticleHeliyon2024
Risk of infective endocarditis in patients with mitral valve prolapse: Systematic review with meta-analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Infective endocarditis (IE) is a serious heart valvular condition. While mitral valve prolapse (MVP) has been associated with an increased risk of IE, the magnitude of this association remains poorly quantified. This systematic review aimed to better estimate the risk of developing IE among MVP patients compared with the general population. Methods: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) and Web of Science databases were searched electronically to find all the relevant cohort and case-control studies. Pooled estimates of odds ratios (ORs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were derived by random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test. Results: A total of six studies were considered eligible, and the obtained results showed that MVP patients had a higher risk of IE when compared to the general population (OR 7.83, 95 % CI 5.11, 12.02; I2 = 0 %). Posterior analysis according to the risk of bias and study design didn't show any significant variations in the direction and magnitude of the effect. Conclusion: The magnitude of increased risk of IE of 7-fold warrants further attention for patients with MVP. Further contemporary studies and prophylaxis studies should be considered.
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.