ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2025
Performance of Different Versions of Duke Criteria in Diagnosing Infective Endocarditis in Patients With Intracardiac Prosthetic Materials.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 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.
- Newly recognized typical microorganisms in intracardiac prosthetic material-related infective endocarditis: evidence behind their inclusion in the 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diagnosing infective endocarditis (IE) is a significant challenge. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of the 2015 and 2023 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the 2023 International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) Duke clinical criteria in a cohort of patients with suspected IE and intracardiac prosthetic material. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted at 2 Swiss University Hospitals (2014-2024). The reference standard was the diagnosis of the Endocarditis Team or expert clinicians. Patients with IE (reference standard) classified as definite IE by the Duke criteria were considered true positives, while those without IE classified as rejected IE were considered true negatives. Results: Of the 1025 episodes with suspected IE and intracardiac prosthetic material, 537 (61%) had IE. Using the 2015 ESC, 2023 ESC, and 2023 ISCVID clinical criteria, 324 (32%), 367 (36%), and 430 (42%) episodes were classified as definite IE, respectively. The sensitivity for the 2015 Duke-ESC, 2023 Duke-ESC, and 2023 Duke-ISCVID the clinical criteria was calculated to be 56% (95% CI: 52-60%), 61% (57-65%), and 71% (67-74%), respectively, while the specificity 67% (63-71%), 56% (51-61%), and 34% (29-38%), respectively. Conclusions: The 2023 ISCVID Duke clinical criteria demonstrated the highest sensitivity for diagnosing IE compared to the 2015 and 2023 ESC Duke criteria in patients with intracardiac prosthetic material. However, this was at the expense of specificity.
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.