ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2016
Quantitative Coronary Physiology for Clinical Management: the Imaging Standard.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Myocardial Microvascular Physiology in Acute and Chronic Coronary Syndromes, Aortic Stenosis, and Heart Failure.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2022Article
- Optimizing quantitative myocardial perfusion by positron emission tomography for guiding CAD management.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pressure derived FFR and coronary flow capacity by PET define a physiologic severity-risk-benefit continuum wherein probability of benefit from revascularization over risk of the procedure and risk of residual global diffuse disease guides personalized, informed, evidenced based, interventional decisions. For the many variations in PET or MRI protocols for quantifying myocardial perfusion to define physiologic severity, the simple standard performance test combining measurement accuracy and clinical coronary pathophysiology to assure correct clinical decisions is the capacity to measure (i) rest perfusion of 0.2 cm(3)/min/gm in transmural scar in at least five patients to test low perfusion accuracy (ii) regional and global CFR of 4.0 or stress perfusion of 2.9 cm(3)/min/gm on two sequential rest-stress PET perfusion studies in the same subject with ±15 % variability for at least 15 young healthy volunteers with no risk factors, no smoking, no obesity, and no measureable blood caffeine levels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.