ReviewFrontiers in physiology2018
Predictive Physiological Modeling of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - Is Virtual Treatment Planning the Future?
Review in Frontiers in physiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanopriming by vascular stiffness and phenotypic reprogramming by disturbed flow: mechanobiology and clinical translation in atherosclerosis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Drug coated balloons in percutaneous coronary intervention: how can computational modelling help inform evolving clinical practice?Frontiers in medical technology · 2025Review
- Patient-specific 3DFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Computational modeling has been used routinely in the pre-clinical development of medical devices such as coronary artery stents. The ability to simulate and predict physiological and structural parameters such as flow disturbance, wall shear-stress, and mechanical strain patterns is beneficial to stent manufacturers. These methods are now emerging as useful clinical tools, used by physicians in the assessment and management of patients. Computational models, which can predict the physiological response to intervention, offer clinicians the ability to evaluate a number of different treatment strategies
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.