ArticleInternal medicine journal2026
Accuracy of data routinely collected by Australian hospitals for identifying infective endocarditis, causative organisms and clinical outcomes: a diagnostic accuracy study.
Article in Internal medicine journal, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInfective endocarditis (IE) is a life-threatening condition, and the surveillance of the incidence is important for monitoring disease trends. Administrative data routinely collected by hospitals offer a feasible and inexpensive method for surveillance of patients with IE, yet the accuracy of coding of IE, causative organisms and outcomes is uncertain.
aimTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of routinely collected Australian hospital administrative data for identifying IE, causative organisms and selected clinical outcomes.
methodsUsing a cross-sectional design, we included all hospitalisations with International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision, Australian Modification (ICD10-AM) codes for IE from 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2023 at a quaternary referral centre. IE cases not captured by coding were ascertained by reviewing clinical data sources (echocardiogram reports, cardiothoracic surgical and device implantation registries and an IE biobank). We used a definite, possible or pathological diagnosis of IE as per the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Modified criteria for IE as the reference standard for diagnosing IE.
resultsWe identified 353 hospitalisations with principal or secondary ICD10-AM diagnosis codes at discharge. Of these, 313 patients had IE as per the ESC Modified criteria. A further 51 patients (14%) with IE meeting the ESC modified criteria = were found not captured by coding during the same period. ICD10-AM codes for IE had an overall sensitivity of 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-0.90), specificity of 1.00 (95% CI 1.00-1.00), a positive predictive value of 0.89 (95% CI 0.85-0.92) and a negative predictive value of 1.00 (95% CI 0.99-1.00). Coding identified the causative organism with an overall sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI 0.72-0.81) and specificity of 1.00 (95% CI 1.00-1.00), with high accuracy for the most common organism, Staphylococcus aureus (sensitivity 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.93; specificity 0.95, 95% CI 0.89-0.98). Coding demonstrated high accuracy for detection of in-hospital deaths (sensitivity 0.91, 95% CI 0.75-0.98; specificity 1.00, 95% CI 1.00-1.00) and surgical management (sensitivity 0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.94; specificity 1.00, 95% CI 1.00-1.00) with lower sensitivity and specificity for other outcomes.
conclusionICD10-AM codes offer reasonable sensitivity and excellent specificity for the diagnosis of IE, common organisms and selected clinical outcomes and can be utilised for surveillance of IE.
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.