Overall Accuracy of the Modified Duke Criteria—A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Tulio Caldonazo,Panagiotis Tasoudis,Torsten Doenst,Dimitrios Moris,Lillian Kang,Alexandros Moschovas,Hristo Kirov,Ricardo E. Treml,Michel Pompeu Sá,Stefan Hagel,Mahmoud Diab

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2462-8950

2024-12-01

The Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon

Abstract:Background Rapid and accurate diagnosis of infective endocarditis (IE) allows timely management of this life-threatening disease and improves outcome. The Duke criteria have traditionally been the clinical method for diagnosing IE. These criteria were reformulated at different timepoints. We aimed to evaluate the real accuracy of the modified Duke criteria based on several studies that concluded the diagnosis of IE. Methods Three databases were assessed. Studies were considered for inclusion if they reported the use of modified Duke criteria as the initial approach and the confirmation of the diagnosis with the gold standard methods. The meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy was performed after fitting the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model (HSROC) with bivariate model and displaying the summarized measures of sensitivity and specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios. Results A total of 11 studies were included. Accuracy in the included studies ranged from 62.3 to 92.2%, sensitivity ranged from 58.3 to 84.0%, and specificity ranged from 50.0 to 100%. The combined overall sensitivity and specificity were 85% (95% CI: 0.77–0.90) and 98% (95% CI: 0.89–0.99), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio was 40.2 (95% CI: 7.26–220.74) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.15 (95% CI: 0.01–0.23). Conclusion The analysis reveals that the modified Duke criteria have a high positive likelihood ratio, suggesting a robust correlation between a positive test result and the existence of IE, and a very good overall specificity at 98%. The latter aspect holds significant importance in order to prevent unnecessary overtreatment, given the intricacies involved in managing IE. The data underlying this article are available in the article and in its online supplementary material. T.C., P.T., S.H., and M.D. designed the study. D.M., L.K., and A.M. performed the literature review in three different libraries. T.C., H.K., and R.T. selected the studies, assessed them for risk of bias, performed data abstraction, built the tables, and organized the results. P.T. and M.P.S. performed the statistical analyses. T.C., T.D., S.H., and M.D. analyzed the data. T.C., T.D., S.H., and M.D. wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript. This modality of meta-analysis involves different steps that need to be executed and coordinated collectively. * These authors contributed equally to this work. Received: 01 July 2024 Accepted: 05 November 2024 Article published online: 29 November 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems,respiratory system