ReviewReviews in cardiovascular medicine2024
Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO): History, Diagnosis, and Management.
Review in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Beyond the Obvious: Evaluating Incidence and Causes of False Positive Patent Foramen Ovale Diagnoses in Cryptogenic Ischemic Stroke-A Retrospective Analysis.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Article
- Preliminary study on the application of percutaneous patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure in the treatment of children with PFO and severe migraine.Translational pediatrics · 2025Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current guidelines recommend closing a patent foramen ovale (PFO) in patients who have experienced a cryptogenic or cardioembolic stroke, have a high-risk PFO, and are aged between 16 and 60 years (class A recommendation, level I evidence). In terms of efficacy, in the CLOSE and RESPECT trials, the number needed-to-treat (NNT) to prevent one stroke recurrence in a five-year term was between 20 and 44. Other trials, such as the REDUCE trial, presented much better data with a NNT of 28 at two years and as low as 18 over a follow-up period of 10 years. Interventional PFO closure is relatively straightforward to learn compared to other cardiology procedures; however, it must be performed meticulously to minimize the risk of post-procedural complications. Usually, a double-disk occlusion device is used, followed by antiplatelet therapy. While the potential benefits of PFO closure for conditions such as migraines are currently being studied, robust trials are still required. Therefore, deciding to close a PFO for reasons other than stroke should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
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.