ReviewCureus2025
A Review of Evidence for Surgical Closure Versus Medical Therapy Alone in Preventing Recurrent Stroke in the Presence of a Patent Foramen Ovale.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Presented is a review of the evidence for surgical closure of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) vs. medical therapy alone in the prevention of recurrent stroke in those who have already suffered a cryptogenic stroke. Several trials that made this comparison were identified. Their methodologies and results were analysed in an attempt to make a unifying conclusion about whether surgical closure is beneficial and for which groups of patients. A literature search identified six significant trials conducted over the last two decades, which recruited a total of 3,750 participants aged 60 years or younger. Their methodologies, including inclusion and exclusion criteria, device choices, endpoint definitions and published results, were evaluated and compared. Early trials were unable to demonstrate a benefit from closure. Later trials found a significant benefit to closure. The later trials refined the inclusion and exclusion criteria to recruit more at-risk participants, specifically those with large atrial septal aneurysms (ASAs) and large shunts across the atrial septum. There were procedural concerns with all trials to varying degrees. Concerns included the open nature of the trials, vague inclusion/exclusion criteria, participants treated outside of their assigned designation, lack of adequate power and mid-trial changes to the defined outcome measures. It appears there is evidence in favour of PFO closure in the prevention of recurrent stroke in young patients with large ASAs and large shunts. PFO closure was associated with significantly higher rates of atrial fibrillation and serious procedure-related complications, so the relative risk and reward must be determined on a patient-to-patient basis. A decision should be made only after a thorough investigation, which is to include bubble echocardiography, long-term ECG/Holter monitoring and exclusion of non-PFO-related index strokes via a comprehensive search for alternate aetiologies.
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.