ReviewWorld journal of cardiology2018
Instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR
Review in World journal of cardiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Culprit versus Complete Revascularization during the Initial Intervention in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Using a Virtual Treatment Planning Tool: Results of a Single-Center Pilot Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Trial
- Coronary Artery Anomalies and Anatomical Variants: Cross-Sectional Diagnostic Imaging and Clinical Background.Journal of imaging · 2026Review
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Quantitative Coronary Analysis as Compared with Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio in Intermediate Coronary Lesions: A Prospective Vessel-Level Study.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2026Article
- Uncertainty Quantification and Sensitivity Analysis for Non-invasive Model-Based Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Prediction.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 2025Article
- Fractional flow reserve, quantitative flow ratio, and instantaneous wave-free ratio: a comparison of the procedure-related dose of ionising radiation.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2021Article
- Bridging the Gap in a Rare Cause of Angina.European cardiology · 2021Review
- Physiology and coronary artery disease: emerging insights from computed tomography imaging based computational modeling.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2020Review
- Additional Value of Machine-Learning Computed Tomographic Angiography-Based Fractional Flow Reserve Compared to Standard Computed Tomographic Angiography.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Endpoint selection for noninferiority percutaneous coronary intervention trials: a methodological description.Therapeutic advances in cardiovascular diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary angiography is considered to be the gold standard in the morphological evaluation of coronary artery stenosis. The morphological assessment of the severity of a coronary lesion is very subjective. Thus, the invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement represents the current standard for estimation of the hemodynamic significance of coronary artery stenosis. The FFR-guided revascularization strategy was initially classified as a Class-IA-recommendation in the 2014 European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Both the Deferral
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.