ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2025
Matters of the heart; antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of infective endocarditis-are we getting it right?
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From prescription to resistance: integrating one health perspectives into dental antibiotic stewardship in Saudi Arabia.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
a commentary onSperotto F, France K, Gobbo M et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis and infective endocarditis incidence following invasive dental procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Cardiol 2024; 9:599. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2024.0873 .
objectivesThis systematic review evaluates the association between antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) and the incidence of infective endocarditis (IE) following invasive dental procedures (IDPs). MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane-CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, Proquest, and Embase, from inception to May 2023. Observational studies, including case-control, case-crossover, cohort, self-controlled case-series, and time-trend studies were included. Data were extracted independently, and structured tools were used to evaluate study quality. A random-effects meta-analysis estimated the pooled-relative risk (RR) of developing IE in high-risk subjects who received AP compared to those who did not.
resultsOf 11,217 identified records, 30 studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 1,152,345 IE cases. Among 12 relevant studies, five found a significant protective effect of AP in high-risk subjects. Four studies were combined in meta-analysis and showed AP was associated with a significantly lower IE risk in high-risk individuals (pooled-RR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.29-0.57). No significant association was found for moderate- or low/unknown-risk subjects. Time-trend studies showed mixed results: some indicated increased IE incidence after AP guideline changes, while others found no change or a decrease.
conclusionsDespite limitations, this review provides an important update on AP use in preventing IE after IDPs. Evidence supports AP use for high-risk individuals, while data remain inconclusive for moderate-risk populations, highlighting the need for further research.
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.