ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2021
Stroke Prevention in Patients with Patent Foramen Ovale.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retrospective Comparison of Device Versus Suture for Patent Foramen Ovale Closure.Heart international · 2025Article
- Advances in Recurrent Stroke Prevention: Focus on Antithrombotic Therapies.Circulation research · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewPatent foramen ovale (PFO) is widely prevalent and studies have suggested an association with ischemic stroke. In this review, we aim to highlight current management of patients with ischemic stroke in the setting of PFO and discuss some areas of controversy. RECENT
findingsUpon reviewing the literature, we have found that the evidence regarding the management of patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO has come a long way in the past several years, and many uncertainties remain in clinical practice. The Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE) score helps to predict the probability of a pathogenic PFO, and recent trial data confirms the benefit of closure in carefully selected patients. The benefit of closure in older patients and in patients with alternate, competing mechanisms is still uncertain, and the long-term risks of closure are not known. Finally, the efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in this patient population as compared to other medical therapy or mechanical closure has not yet been investigated. Randomized data is needed to help answer these questions. PFO closure is a safe and effective strategy in reducing stroke risk in carefully selected patients with cryptogenic stroke in the setting of a PFO. More studies are needed to test optimal medical treatment strategies and the safety and efficacy of PFO closure in patient subgroups not included in prior PFO closure trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.