Shah R, Nayyar M, Jovin IS, RashidA, Bondy BR, Fan TM, Flaherty MP, Rao SV. Device closure versus medical therapy alone for patent foramen ovale in patients with cryptogenic stroke: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168:335 342. doi: 10.7326/M17-2679 501. De Rosa S, Sievert H, Sabatino J, Polimeni A, Sorrentino S, Indolfi C. Percutaneous closure versus medical treatment in stroke patients with patent foramen ovale: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern 502. Zhang XL, Kang LN, Wang L, Xu B. Percutaneous closure versus medical therapy for stroke with patent foramen ovale: a systematic re- view and meta-analysis. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2018;18:45. doi: 503. Palaiodimos L, Kokkinidis DG, Faillace RT, Foley TR, Dangas GD, Price MJ, Mastoris I. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale vs. medical treatment for patients with history of cryptogenic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2018;19(pt B):852 858. doi: 504. Ando T, Holmes AA, Pahuja M, Javed A, Briasoulis A, Telila T, Takagi H, Schreiber T, Afonso L, Grines CL, et al. Meta-analysis com- paring patent foramen ovale closure versus medical therapy to prevent recurrent cryptogenic stroke. Am J Cardiol. 2018;121:649 655. doi: 505. Lattanzi S, Brigo F, Cagnetti C, Di Napoli M, Silvestrini M. Patent fo- ramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack: to close or not to close? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cerebrovasc Dis. 506. Higgins JP, Altman DG, G tzsche PC, J ni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, SavovicJ,SchulzKF,WeeksL,SterneJA;CochraneBiasMethodsGroup; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. 507. Johansson E, Cuadrado-Godia E, Hayden D, Bjellerup J, OisA, Roquer J, Wester P, Kelly PJ. Recurrent stroke in symptomatic carotid stenosis awaiting revascularization: a pooled analysis. Neurology. 2016;86:498 508. 