ReviewInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2025
Sex-specific differences in infective endocarditis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical profiles and management outcomes.
Review in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Highlights recently published in the International Journal of Cardiology Heart & Vasculature on sex differences in susceptibility, manifestation and outcome of cardiovascular diseases.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2026Article
- Sex differences in the diagnosis, management and outcomes of patients with infective endocarditis.Open heart · 2026Article
- Female sex is not associated with worse surgical outcomes in infective endocarditis: a prospective study disproving a common assumption.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- [Comparison of the epidemiological, clinical and diagnostic characteristics of infective endocarditis of native and prosthetic valves in a Peruvian reference center].Archivos peruanos de cardiologia y cirugia cardiovascularArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Infective endocarditis (IE) presents significant morbidity and mortality, with potential sex differences in clinical profile and outcomes. This is the first meta-analysis that aims to compare the clinical profile and outcomes of IE between males and females. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of nine studies evaluating the clinical profile and outcomes of IE in males versus females extracted from PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases up to 1st of Jan 2024. Results: Our meta-analysis revealed notable sex differences in the incidence and complications of IE. Males exhibited a higher incidence of aortic valve IE (RR 1.57, 95 % CI [1.31, 1.88]), surgical indications for IE (RR 1.38, [1.12, 1.70]), Streptococci infection (RR 1.36, [1.04, 1.77]), intracardiac abscess (RR 1.22, [1.05, 1.42]), and Enterococci IE (RR 1.44, [1.28, 1.61]). In contrast, females had a higher incidence of mitral valve IE (RR 0.79, [0.67, 0.94]) and a higher in-hospital mortality rate (RR 0.84, [0.74, 0.96]). No significant sex differences were found in the incidence of valve vegetations, tricuspid valve IE, embolization, and Staphylococcus IE. In-hospital stay was longer in male patients, however, with borderline significance (RR 3.15, [-0.16, 6.45], p = 0.06). In patients who underwent surgery for IE, mortality rates were significantly lower in male patients (RR: 0.67 [0.59, 0.76], p < 0.01). Conclusions: Compared to females, males exhibit higher rates of aortic valve IE, intracardiac abscess, streptococci IE, enterococci IE and IE-related surgery indication. In contrast, females have higher rates of mitral valve IE and in-hospital mortality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.