Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29588667›Full record

ArticleInterventional cardiology (London, England)2015

Intravascular Ultrasound Versus Optical Coherence Tomography for Coronary Artery Imaging - Apples and Oranges?

Krishnaraj S Rathod, Stephen M Hamshere, Daniel A Jones, Anthony Mathur

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Interventional cardiology (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Optical Coherence Tomography in Acute Coronary Syndromes.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. [ACS medicinal chemistry letters · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. A Micromachined Pb(MgJournal of engineering and science in medical diagnostics and therapy · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Krishnaraj S RathodDepartment of Cardiology, Barts Health NHS Trust.
Stephen M HamshereDepartment of Cardiology, Barts Health NHS Trust.
Daniel A JonesDepartment of Cardiology, Barts Health NHS Trust.
Anthony MathurDepartment of Cardiology, Barts Health NHS Trust.

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2014-07-008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intravascular imaging has advanced our understanding of coronary artery disease and facilitated decision-making in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In particular, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has contributed significantly to modern PCI techniques. The recent introduction of optical coherence tomography (OCT) has further expanded this field due to its higher resolution and rapid image acquisition as compared with IVUS. Furthermore, OCT allows detailed planning of interventional strategies and optimisation before stent deployment, particularly with complex lesions. However, to date it is unclear whether OCT is superior to IVUS as an intracoronary imaging modality with limited data supporting OCT use in routine clinical practice. This review aims to compare these two intracoronary imaging techniques and the recent evidence for their use in this ever-changing field within interventional cardiology.

Indexed as

intracoronary imagingIntravascular ultrasound (IVUS)optical coherence tomography (OCT)

Identifiers

PMID29588667
PMCPMC5808463

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.