Applying Classification of Recommendations and Level of Evidence A recommendation with Level of Evidence B or C does not imply that the recommendation is weak. Many important clinical questions addressed in the guidelines do not lend themselves to clinical trials. Although randomized trials are unavailable, there may be a very clear clinical consensus that a particular test or therapy is useful or effective. *Data available from clinical trials or registries about the usefulness/efficacy in different subpopulations, such as sex, age, history of diabetes, history of prior myocardial infarction, history of heart failure, and prior aspirin use. For comparative effectiveness recommendations (Class I and IIa; Level of Evidence A and B only), studies that support the use of comparator verbs should involve direct comparisons of the treatments or strategies being evaluated. Several refinements have been made to both the major and minor Duke criteria. In the original Duke criteria, bacteremia resulting from S aureus or enterococci was considered to fulfill a major criterion only if it was community acquired because ample literature suggested that this parameter was an important surro- gate marker for underlying IE.27 However, an increasing number of more contemporary studies documented IE in patients experi- encing nosocomial staphylococcal bacteremia. For example, of 59 consecutive patients with S aureus IE, 45.8% had nosocomial infections, and 50.8% had a removable focus of infection.39 In an analysis of 262 patients at the Duke University Medical Center who had hospital-acquired S aureus bacteremia, 34 (13%) were subsequently diagnosed with definite IE. 