ReviewCureus2025
Prediction Models of Infective Endocarditis Usable Ahead of Performing Blood Cultures: A Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Infective endocarditis (IE) often presents as a fever of unknown origin due to its extremely diverse clinical presentations, requiring diverse advanced medical equipment and tests to make a correct diagnosis. Whether a physician can suspect IE in a clinical setting is dependent on the physician's knowledge and experience. If IE is not suspected, antibiotics are administered without obtaining blood cultures, complicating the clinical course and prognosis. To avoid delayed diagnosis or entering the maze of diagnostic difficulties of IE cases, a prediction model to deduce IE likelihood can be used at an early stage after a patient's arrival at the hospital before blood culture examinations would be invaluable. In this study, we aimed to review the literature on such prediction models for IE diagnosis in existence, discussing their strengths and limitations. A narrative review was conducted by two researchers using PubMed. Comprehensive searches included the index terms "infective endocarditis" or "infectious endocarditis", coupled with "prediction model" or "prediction rule" or "predictive model". Five articles reporting one of the three prediction models were identified. The first model, developed for intravenous drug users (IDUs) admitted to the emergency departments of two to three hospitals showed a good area under the curve (AUC) of 0.8; however, the small sample size and overfitting of the model were a limit. The second model for inpatients in all departments of four hospitals showed an AUC of 0.783 with a shrinkage coefficient of 0.963, indicating high generalizability. Moreover, it featured the highest ease of use because it consisted of only five factors readily available in any hospital. The third model, developed for inpatients admitted to an emergency department at a single center, consisted of 12 factors and achieved the highest AUC (0.881). All models demonstrated fair to good AUC. The second model excelled in generalizability and ease of use, while the third model was superior in performance. To further improve the accuracy of each IE prediction, further high-level evidence studies, such as randomized controlled trials in multiple facilities, are mandatory.
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.