MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170443916 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004282

Systematic review of percutaneous closure versus medical therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale

2014· review· en· W2170443916 on OpenAlexaff
Frederick A. Spencer, Luciane Cruz Lopes, Sean A. Kennedy, Gordon Guyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and Diving-Related Complications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePatent foramen ovalePercutaneousClosure (psychology)Stroke (engine)Medical therapyForamen ovale (heart)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To provide a comprehensive comparison of patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure versus medical therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and demonstrated PFO. DESIGN: Systematic review with complete case meta-analysis and sensitivity analyses. Data sources included MEDLINE and EMBASE from 1980 up to May 2013. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatment with percutaneous catheter-based closure of PFO to anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke or TIA and echocardiographically confirmed PFO or atrial septal defect (ASD) were eligible. PARTICIPANTS: 1967 participants with prior stroke or TIA and echocardiographically confirmed PFO or ASD. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of interest was recurrence of ischaemic stroke. We utilised data from complete cases only for the primary endpoint and combined data from trials to estimate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and associated 95% CIs calculated using random effects models. RESULTS: We identified 284 potentially eligible articles of which three RCTs including 2303 patients proved eligible and 1967 patients had complete data. Of the 1026 patients randomised to PFO closure and followed to study conclusion 22 experienced non-fatal ischaemic strokes, as did 34 of 941 patients randomised to medical therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.07; heterogeneity: p=0.34, I(2)=8%, confidence in estimates low due to risk of bias and imprecision). Analyses for ischaemic stroke restricted to 'per-protocol' patients or patients with concomitant atrial septal aneurysm did not substantially change the observed RRs. Complication rates associated with either PFO closure or medical therapy were low. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled data from three RCTs provides insufficient support that PFO closure is preferable to medical therapy for secondary prevention of cryptogenic stroke in patients with PFO.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.013
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicCardiovascular and Diving-Related ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207