The evil of the patent foramen ovale: we are seeing but the tip of the iceberg.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

1. The Efficacy of Percutaneous Patent Foramen Ovale Closure on Migraine: a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies.BioMed research international · 2021
   Pooled it
2. Every Patent Foramen Ovale Should Be Closed.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024
   Review
3. Efficacy and safety of patent foramen ovale closure for mitigating migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2024
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Patent foramen ovale closure vs. medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.2018

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as