ReviewJournal of inflammation research2025
Corynebacterium Striatum Infective Endocarditis: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of inflammation research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Corynebacterium striatum (CS) is an uncommon but potentially fatal pathogen of infective endocarditis (IE). The literature on the patterns and clinical progression of Corynebacterium striatum infective endocarditis (CSIE) is limited. This article aims to provide insights into the clinical presentation and management of CSIE through a retrospective analysis of documented cases. Methods: An electronic search was conducted across various databases including PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database, and Wanfang database to identify relevant articles in both English and Chinese literature documenting CSIE. Subsequently, patient-level data were extracted and subjected to analysis. Results: The systematic search yielded 38 patients from 35 articles. The median age was 68 [IQR 54, 73] years, and 63.2% of patients were men. A history of heart disease was present in 55.3% of cases, while 15.8% had a history of cardiovascular electronic device implantation. The mitral valve was the most commonly affected site, accounting for 52.8%. The misdiagnosis or missed diagnosis rate of CSIE was 28.9%. Microbiological confirmation by 16S ribosomal ribonucleic acid (16S rRNA) or metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) was present in 13.2% of cases. Vancomycin was the most effective antibiotic, with 41.7% of the CS isolates showing resistance to multiple drugs. Surgical intervention was performed in 55.3% of the CSIE patients, and the overall fatality rate was 37.8%, both of which were higher than those reported in standard IE due to common pathogens such as Conclusion: CSIE often presents with nonspecific symptoms, making it prone to misdiagnosis or underdiagnosis. Echocardiography and blood cultures remain the primary diagnostic tools, but advanced approaches such as 16S rRNA and mNGS improve accuracy in pathogen identification. Compared to IE caused by common microorganisms (eg, Staphylococcus aureus, viridans streptococci), CSIE is associated with higher rates of surgical intervention and mortality, underscoring the urgent need for increased clinical vigilance and prompt, targeted management.
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.