Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32780339›Full record

ReviewNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2020

Invasive coronary physiology: a Dutch tradition.

T P van de Hoef, G A de Waard, M Meuwissen, M Voskuil, S A J Chamuleau, N van Royen, J J Piek

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

T P van de HoefDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology, Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. t.p.vandehoef@amsterdamumc.nl.
G A de WaardDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology, Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M MeuwissenDepartment of Cardiology, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands.
M VoskuilDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
S A J ChamuleauDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology, Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
N van RoyenDepartment of Cardiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
J J PiekDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology, Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Invasive coronary physiology has been applied since the early days of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, and has become a rapidly emerging field of research. Many physiology indices have been developed, tested in clinical studies, and are now applied in daily clinical practice. Recent clinical practice guidelines further support the use of advanced invasive physiology methods to optimise the diagnosis and treatment of patients with acute and chronic coronary syndromes. This article provides a succinct review of the history of invasive coronary physiology, the basic concepts of currently available physiological parameters, and will particularly highlight the Dutch contribution to this field of invasive coronary physiology.

Indexed as

Coronary flow capacityCoronary flow reserveFractional flow reserveMicrovascular resistanceNon-hyperaemic coronary pressure ratiosStenosis resistance index

Identifiers

PMID32780339
PMCPMC7419414

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.