ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2022
Clinicians' Approach to Patent Foramen Ovale Closure after Stroke: Comparing Cardiologists and Neurologists.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- PFO-ACCESS: Augmenting Communications for Medical Care or Closure in the Evaluation of Patients With Stroke With Cardiac Shunts.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Atrial Fibrillation After Patent Foramen Ovale Closure: Incidence, Pathophysiology, and Management.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Review
- Management of Patients With Patent Foramen Ovale and Stroke: A National Survey of Interventional Cardiologists and Vascular Neurologists.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background Evidence from randomized trials and updated professional society guidelines supports patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure after cryptogenic stroke in select patients. It is unclear how this has been integrated into real-world practice, so we aimed to compare practice patterns between cardiologists and neurologists. Methods and Results In March of 2021, a survey of cardiologists and neurologists who work or previously trained at the University of Pennsylvania Health System assessed practice preferences with respect to PFO closure after stroke. Clinical vignettes isolated specific variables of interest and used a 5-point Likert scale to assess the level of support for PFO closure. Stroke neurologists and interventional cardiologists were compared by Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests. Secondarily, Kruskal-Wallis tests compared stroke neurologists, general neurologists, interventional cardiologists, and general cardiologists. We received 106 responses from 182 survey recipients (31/31 stroke neurologists, 38/46 interventional cardiologists, 20/30 general neurologists, and 17/77 general cardiologists). A similar proportion of stroke neurologists and interventional cardiologists favored PFO closure in a young patient with cryptogenic stroke, 88% and 87%, respectively (
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.