Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27134520›Full record

ReviewKorean journal of radiology

Physiologic Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease: Focus on Fractional Flow Reserve.

Doyeon Hwang, Joo Myung Lee, Bon-Kwon Koo

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Korean journal of radiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Automated stenosis estimation of coronary angiographies using end-to-end learning.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Doyeon HwangDepartment of Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul 03080, Korea.
Joo Myung LeeDepartment of Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Center, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Korea.
Bon-Kwon KooDepartment of Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul 03080, Korea.; Institute of Aging, Seoul National University, Seoul 03087, Korea.
Institute of Aging · CASamsung Medical Center · KRSeoul National University Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The presence of myocardial ischemia is the most important prognostic factor in patients with ischemic heart disease. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is a gold standard invasive method used to detect the stenosis-specific myocardial ischemia. FFR-guided revascularization strategy is superior to angiography-guided strategy. The recently developed hyperemia-free index, instantaneous wave free ratio is being actively investigated. A non-invasive FFR derived from coronary CT angiography is now used in clinical practice. Due to rapid expansion of invasive and non-invasive physiologic assessment, comprehensive understanding of the role and potential pitfalls of each modality are required for its application. In this review, we focus on the basic and clinical aspects of physiologic assessment in ischemic heart disease.

Indexed as

Coronary AngiographyExerciseFractional Flow Reserve, MyocardialHeartHemodynamicsHumansMyocardial IschemiaStress, PhysiologicalTomography, X-Ray ComputedCoronary artery diseaseFractional flow reserveIschemiaPhysiology

Identifiers

PMID27134520
PMCPMC4842851
OpenAlexW2295427581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 OpenQuestion graph.