ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Transesophageal vs. transthoracic echocardiography for infective endocarditis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: This meta-analysis aims to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) vs. transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in detecting infective endocarditis (IE). Methods: A comprehensive computerized search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant English-language diagnostic trials or cohort studies published from inception to September 2025. Two independent researchers conducted literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Diagnostic accuracy data were extracted or calculated, and pooled sensitivity, specificity, and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined. A summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was constructed. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 18.0 and related software. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Results: A total of 13 studies involving 2,765 suspected patients with IE were finally included. A meta-analysis demonstrated that, using TEE as the reference, the pooled sensitivity of TTE was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.55-0.84), and the pooled specificity was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.55-0.85), with significant heterogeneity (sensitivity Conclusion: TEE remains superior in IE diagnosis. For patients with high clinical suspicion but negative or inconclusive TTE findings, additional TEE examination is recommended to improve diagnostic accuracy and support clinical decision-making.
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.