SynthesisReviews in cardiovascular medicine2025
Assessment of Microvascular Function in Angina Pectoris by Angiography-Based Index of Microcirculation Resistance: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While the invasive index of microcirculation resistance (IMR) remains the gold standard for diagnosing coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD), its clinical adoption is limited by procedural complexity and cost. Angiography-based IMR (Angio-IMR), a computational angiography-based method, offers a promising alternative. This study evaluates the diagnostic efficacy of Angio-IMR for CMD detection in angina pectoris (AP). Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library to identify studies assessing Angio-IMR's diagnostic performance for CMD in AP populations. Primary outcomes included pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). Results: 11 studies involving 927 patients were included. Angio-IMR demonstrated robust diagnostic performance: sensitivity 86% (95% CI: 0.83-0.90), specificity 90% (95% CI: 0.87-0.92), PPV 82% (95% CI: 0.78-0.86), NPV 91% (95% CI: 0.88-0.94), and AUC 0.91 (95% CI: 0.89-0.94), with low heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences in diagnostic accuracy between obstructive (stenosis ≥50%) and non-obstructive coronary artery disease. Hyperemic Angio-IMR measurements (adenosine-induced) showed superior sensitivity (89% vs. 86%) and specificity (94% vs. 91%) compared to resting-state assessments by AccuFFR system. Additionally, the sensitivity (88% vs. 82%), specificity (92% vs. 86%), PPV (82% vs. 78%) and NPV (91% vs. 88%) calculated based on AccuFFR were higher than that of quantitative flow ratio (QFR). Conclusions: Angio-IMR is a reliable, non-invasive tool for CMD identification in angina patients, particularly under hyperemic conditions. Its diagnostic consistency across stenosis severity subgroups supports broad clinical applicability.
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.