ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2026
Prediction Scores Identifying Patients at High Risk of Endocarditis in Enterococcal Bacteremia.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2026. 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.
- Evaluation of the MEFIER Score in Identifying Patients at High Risk of Endocarditis inOpen forum infectious diseases · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinical prediction scores such as NOVA and DENOVA aim to identify patients with enterococcal bacteremia at low risk of infective endocarditis (IE) in whom imaging might be safely avoided. The aim was to evaluate the performance of NOVA and DENOVA scores and to introduce a modified tool, DENOVi. Method: This retrospective study included adult patients with enterococcal bacteremia at 2 Swiss tertiary centers (2015-2024). IE was adjudicated by multidisciplinary Endocarditis Teams according to 2023 Duke-International Society of Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases criteria. Patients were stratified as high risk for IE using the adapted NOVA score (cutoff: ≥4), the DENOVA score (≥3), and a newly developed DENOVi score (≥2), which excluded the subjective murmur criterion and broadened "valve disease" to include intracardiac electronic devices (new Vi component). Results: Among 827 bacteremia episodes, 172 (21%) were diagnosed with IE. The adapted NOVA, DENOVA, and DENOVi scores classified 76%, 26%, and 42% of patients as high risk, respectively. Corresponding NLRs were 0.04 (95% CI, .01-.15), 0.10 (0.06-0.16), and 0.04 (0.02-0.10). The adapted NOVA substantially increased the proportion of echocardiograms needed to be performed from 58% based on clinical evaluation alone to 76%, whereas the DENOVA and DENOVi scores would have reduced this proportion to 26% and 42% of episodes, respectively. Conclusions: Both adapted NOVA and DENOVi scores reliably ruled out IE, but DENOVi provided the most balanced approach between diagnostic safety and resource utilization. DENOVi therefore represents a pragmatic and objective tool for IE risk stratification in enterococcal bacteremia. Prospective validation is warranted.
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.