ReviewHerz2021
Patent foramen ovale-When to close and how?
Review in Herz, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patent foramen ovale: diagnostic evaluation and the role of device closure.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2022Review
- Characteristics of Patent Foramen Ovale: Analysis from a Single Center.Cardiology research and practice · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Closure of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) in patients after cryptogenic/cardioembolic stroke is recommended by current guidelines for patients who are 16-60 years of age with a high-risk PFO (class of recommendation A, level of evidence I). The use of double-disk occlusion devices followed by antiplatelet therapy is recommended. The procedure of interventional PFO closure compared with other interventions in cardiology is rather easy to learn. However, it should be performed carefully to avoid postinterventional complications. The number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid one stroke in 5 years in the RESPECT trial was 42, in the CLOSE trial even lower with 20. In the REDUCE trial, the NNT was 28 at 2 years. This can be reduced by longer follow-up, e.g., at 10 years the NNT is 18. While other conditions such as migraine are currently under investigation with respect to the impact of PFO closure, sufficiently powered trials are lacking so that closure in diseases other than stroke should always be individualized.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34463786What 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.