ReviewJournal of cardiovascular echography
Diagnostic Accuracy of Contrast-enhanced Transcranial Doppler for Patent Foramen Ovale Detection in Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of cardiovascular echography. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contrast-enhanced transcranial Doppler (c-TCD) is a promising noninvasive method for detecting patent foramen ovale (PFO) in adults, but its diagnostic accuracy compared to the gold standard transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) requires up-to-date evaluation. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies from 2015 to 2025 assessing c-TCD for PFO detection in adults, following the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search identified 37 relevant articles; of these, five primary studies met the inclusion criteria for quantitative analysis. Data on sensitivity, specificity, and othervdiagnostic performance metrics were extracted, and study quality was appraised using QUADAS-2. The included studies (mostly cryptogenic stroke patients) indicated that c-TCD had high sensitivity (~95%) and good specificity (~90%) for detecting PFO compared to TEE. In our meta-analysis, the summary sensitivity of c-TCD was 94.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 91%-98%) and the specificity was 89.7% (95% CI: 85%-94%). The pooled positive likelihood ratio was ~9, and the negative likelihood ratio was ~0.06. The diagnostic odds ratio was approximately 150, and the area under the curve of the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was approximately 0.97, reflecting excellent overall accuracy. Contrast TCD demonstrates robust diagnostic performance for PFO detection, approaching that of TEE. A negative result on c-TCD reduces the likelihood of clinically significant PFO in patients with stroke, whereas a positive c-TCD strongly suggests PFO and should prompt confirmatory TEE for anatomical details. These findings support the use of c-TCD as a first-line screening tool in the evaluation of cryptogenic stroke.
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.