ArticleCardiology journal2020
Reproducibility of quantitative flow ratio: An inter-core laboratory variability study.
Article in Cardiology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrasonic flow ratio measured immediately after successful rotational atherectomy with stent implantation predicts major adverse cardiovascular events.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Non-invasive Angiographic-based Fractional Flow Reserve: Technical Development, Clinical Implications, and Future Perspectives.Current medical science · 2023Review
- Accuracy and Reproducibility of Coronary Angiography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve in the Assessment of Coronary Lesion Severity.International journal of general medicine · 2023Article
- Diagnostic performance of quantitative flow ratio, non-hyperaemic pressure indices and fractional flow reserve for the assessment of coronary lesions in severe aortic stenosis.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2022Article
- Angiography-Based Fractional Flow Reserve: State of the Art.Current cardiology reports · 2022Review
- Reproducibility of quantitative flow ratio: the QREP study.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022Article
- Fractional flow reserve, quantitative flow ratio, and instantaneous wave-free ratio: a comparison of the procedure-related dose of ionising radiation.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2021Article
- Relationship Between Immunoinflammation and Coronary Physiology Evaluated by Quantitative Flow Ratio in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Alternative methods for functional assessment of intermediate coronary lesions.Cardiology journal · 2020Review
- Is quantitative flow ratio enough to accurately assess intermediate coronary stenosis? A comparison study with fractional flow reserve.Cardiology journal · 2019Article
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
backgroundQuantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel approach to derive fractional flow reserve (FFR) from coronary angiography. This study sought to evaluate the reproducibility of QFR when analyzed in independent core laboratories.
methodsAll interrogated vessels in the FAVOR II China Study were separately analyzed using the AngioPlus system (Pulse medical imaging technology, Shanghai) by two independent core laboratories, following the same standard operation procedures. The analysts were blinded to the FFR values and online QFR values. For each interrogated vessel, two identical angiographic image runs were used by two core laboratories for QFR computation. In both core laboratories QFR was successfully obtained in 330 of 332 vessels, in which FFR was available in 328 vessels. Thus, 328 vessels ended in the present statistical analysis.
resultsThe mean difference in contrast-flow QFR between the two core laboratories was 0.004 ± 0.03 (p = 0.040), which was slightly smaller than that between the online analysis and the two core laboratories (0.01 ± 0.05, p < 0.001 and 0.01 ± 0.05, p = 0.038). The mean difference of QFR with re-spect to FFR were comparable between the two core laboratories (0.002 ± 0.06, p = 0.609, and 0.002 ± 0.06, p = 0.531). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that diagnostic accuracies of QFR analyzed by the two core laboratories were both excellent (area under the curve: 0.970 vs. 0.963, p = 0.142), when using FFR as the reference standard.
conclusionsThe present study showed good inter-core laboratory reproducibility of QFR in assessing functionally-significant stenosis. It suggests that QFR analyses can be carried out in different core labo-ratories if, and only if, highly standardized conditions are maintained.
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.