ReviewCureus2025
Clinical Outcomes in Blood Culture-Positive Versus Blood Culture-Negative Infective Endocarditis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metagenomic next-generation sequencing in blood culture-negative endocarditis: a structured review with illustrative pooled estimates.Infection · 2026Review
- A Case Report of Infective Endocarditis With Icterus.Clinical case reports · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Infective endocarditis (IE) cases where blood cultures fail to identify causative organisms, known as blood culture-negative endocarditis (BCNE), represent a significant portion of all endocarditis diagnoses. This absence of microbiological identification creates therapeutic challenges, as clinicians cannot tailor antimicrobial therapy to specific pathogens. The relationship between microbiological culture results and patient prognosis continues to be an area requiring further investigation. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared clinical outcomes between blood culture-positive endocarditis (BCPE) and BCNE patients. We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to May 2025. Observational studies comparing outcomes between BCPE and BCNE in adult patients were included. Primary outcomes were mortality, embolic events, and need for surgery. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. Seven studies encompassing 5,349 participants were included, with a pooled BCNE prevalence of 16.8%. No significant difference was found in mortality between BCPE and BCNE groups (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.76-1.25). However, BCPE patients had a significantly higher risk of embolic events compared to BCNE patients (RR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.16-1.63). No significant difference was observed in surgical intervention rates (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.75-1.27). Secondary analysis revealed that BCPE patients had higher rates of fever and abscess formation but a lower incidence of heart failure compared to BCNE patients. While mortality and surgical outcomes were similar between groups, blood culture-positive IE patients demonstrated significantly higher embolic complications. These findings suggest that culture-positive status may serve as a marker for increased embolic risk, warranting enhanced monitoring and early intervention strategies in clinical practice.
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.