ReviewCureus2024
A Detailed Systematic Review Comparing Patent Foramen Ovale Closure vs Medical Therapy for the Prevention of Recurrent Cryptogenic Stroke.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of Patent Foramen Ovale Closure vs Medical Therapy for the Prevention of Recurrent Cryptogenic Stroke: A Systematic Review.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cryptogenic stroke refers to a type of ischemic stroke with no identifiable cause despite extensive diagnostic testing. Patent foramen ovale (PFO) treatment modality for the prevention of cryptogenic stroke has been controversial. We undertook this systematic review to compare the efficacy of PFO closure versus medical therapy in preventing recurrent cryptogenic stroke and to provide insight into the most effective treatment modality. Inclusion criteria included patients who had PFO, papers written in English language or had translation available, and papers focusing on medical therapy including drug and surgical treatment for PFO for the prevention of recurrent stroke. Exclusion criteria included articles in which full text could not be obtained and articles in which only one treatment modality was mentioned, either surgical closure or drug therapy. The databases used were PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We conducted a bias assessment through the modified Jadad scale for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and AMSTAR.Ca for meta-analysis and systematic review. The literature search identified a total of 277 papers. After screening, 12 papers were selected for the review. Among these, five were RCTs, five were meta-analyses, one was a systematic review, and one was a systematic review with network meta-analysis. The RCTs included a total of 3,336 participants, while the meta-analyses included 21,813 participants. These finalized papers examined the outcomes of PFO closure compared to medical therapy in preventing recurrent strokes.
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.