ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Angiography versus angio-based fractional flow in assessing intracranial vertebrobasilar artery stenosis.
Article in European radiology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of Angio-based fractional flow (Angio-FF) compared to the degree of stenosis (DS) in identifying symptomatic intracranial vertebrobasilar artery stenosis (IVBS) and assess its utility across lesion subgroups. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis of patients with IVBS was conducted at our institution. Inclusion criteria included patients aged > 18 years with unilateral IVBS (40-90%) confirmed by digital subtraction angiography. Angio-FF was calculated using specialized software. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive values (PPV/NPV), and the area under the curve (AUC) were compared between Angio-FF and DS.
resultsIn 120 patients, 84 were symptomatic, and 36 were asymptomatic. The median Angio-FF value was significantly lower in symptomatic lesions (0.66 vs. 0.88, p < 0.001). Angio-FF showed superior diagnostic performance over DS in identifying symptomatic IVBS (AUC: 0.847 vs. 0.640; p < 0.001). The optimal Angio-FF cutoff value for distinguishing symptomatic IVBS was 0.74, with sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 71.4%, 86.1%, and 75.8%, respectively. Additionally, Angio-FF showed relatively good diagnostic performance across various lesion subgroups, including different lesion lengths, location, and DS.
conclusionsAngio-FF outperformed DS in identifying symptomatic IVBS. It may serve as a reliable tool for identifying symptomatic IVBS in diverse patient populations. KEY POINTS: Question Does Angio-based fractional flow (Angio-FF) provide superior diagnostic accuracy compared to the degree of stenosis alone in identifying symptomatic intracranial vertebrobasilar artery stenosis (IVBS)? Findings Angio-FF demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy, with an optimal cutoff value of 0.74 and consistent performance across various lesion subgroups. Clinical relevance Angio-FF improves hemodynamic risk stratification in IVBS and may facilitate more individualized treatment strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41342928What 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.