Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38893065›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024

Every Patent Foramen Ovale Should Be Closed.

Bernhard Meier

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Bernhard MeierDepartment of Cardiology, University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7566-8011

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

At present, the patent foramen ovale (PFO) does not receive the deserved medical attention. The PFO poses a serious threat to health and even the life of mankind. The first respective case report in the medical literature dates back to the 19th century. It led to death. The fact that a PFO is present in roughly 25% of people underscores its overall potential to cause harm. Yet at the same time, the sheer number discourages the medical community from screening for it and from treating it. About 5% of the population have particularly dangerous forms of PFOs. Such PFOs portray a high enough risk for clinical events, the likes of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or ocular, visceral, and peripheral embolism, to justify screening for them. Highly significant health incidents being at stake, it appears obvious that PFO closure should be used for primary prevention. This is supported by the fact that closing a PFO is the simplest intervention in cardiology, with presumably the highest clinical yield. Being mainly a preventive measure, PFO closure represents a mechanical vaccination. When closing PFOs for one of the rarer therapeutic indications (migraine, platypnea orthodeoxia, etc.), patients automatically profit from the collateral benefit of getting, at the same time, mechanically vaccinated for life against paradoxical embolism. Vice versa, closing a PFO for the prevention of paradoxical embolism betters or cures migraine or exercise dyspnea not infrequently, thereby improving quality of life as a collateral benefit.

Indexed as

angina pectorisatrial septal defectcollateral benefitdevice closureleft atrial appendagemechanical vaccinationmigrainemyocardial infarctionparadoxical embolismpatent foramen ovaleperipheral embolismprimary preventionstroketransient ischemic attack

Identifiers

PMID38893065
PMCPMC11172438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.