SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2024
The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced transcranial Doppler and contrast-enhanced transthoracic echocardiography for right to left shunt in patent foramen ovale: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patent Foramen Ovale: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Pathophysiology, Clinical Features, Diagnosis, and Management.MedComm · 2026Review
- Quantitative assessment and clinical value of right-to-left shunt in patent foramen ovale using three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography combined with right-heart contrast: a prospective study.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Article
- Interatrial septum patency - Clinical implication of a grading system based on cardiac computed tomography.European journal of radiology open · 2026Article
- Recurrent Stroke Due to Pulmonary Arteriovenous Malformation: Diagnostic Challenges and Management.Cureus · 2025Article
- Asian-Pacific Expert Opinion on Patent Foramen Ovale Closure: Review of New Evidence and Focused Update.Journal of stroke · 2025Review
- Right-to-left shunt and transcranial Doppler as a diagnostic tool: when and how to run it. Position statement by the Italian society of neurosonology and cerebral haemodynamics.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Contrast-enhanced Transcranial Doppler for Patent Foramen Ovale Detection in Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of cardiovascular echographyReview
- Integrated assessment of contrast-enhanced TCD and TTE for noninvasive detection of patent foramen ovale under resting and Valsalva conditions.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate and compare the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced transcranial Doppler (c-TCD) and contrast-enhanced transthoracic echocardiography (c-TTE) for right to left shunt (RLS) in patent foramen ovale (PFO) by meta-analysis. Methods: The literature included in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase were searched by using "contrast-enhanced transcranial Doppler (c-TCD), contrast-enhanced transthoracic echocardiography (c-TTE), patent foramen ovale (PFO), and right to left shunt (RLS)" as the keywords from inception through April 30, 2024. The diagnostic accuracy research quality assessment tool (QUADAS-2) was used to evaluate the quality of the included literature. The combined sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were pooled, and a comprehensive ROC curve analysis was performed. Statistical software StataSE 12.0 and Meta-Disc 1.4 were used for data analysis. Results: A total of 8,536 articles were retrieved, and 9 articles that met all inclusion criteria were included in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis results show that the combined sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and area under the SROC curve of c-TCD for the diagnose of PFO-RLS were 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88-0.93), 0.87 (95% CI: 0.84-0.91), 6.0 (95% CI, 2.78-12.96), 0.10 (95% CI, 0.06-0.18), 91.61 (95% CI, 26.55-316.10), and 0.9681, respectively; the corresponding values of c-TTE were 0.86 (95% CI, 0.84-0.89), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.84-0.91), 5.21 (95% CI, 2.55-10.63), 0.16 (95% CI, 0.09-0.31), 71.43 (95% CI, 22.85-223.23), and 0.9532. The ROC curve shows that c-TCD has slightly higher diagnostic value for PFO than c-TTE, but there is no significant statistical difference (Z = 0.622, Conclusion: Both c-TCD and c-TTE have high diagnostic values for PFO-RLS. However, c-TCD has slightly higher sensitivity and lower specificity in diagnosing PFO-RLS compared to c-TTE.
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.