ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2018
Non-Invasive Assessment of Intravascular Pressure Gradients: A Review of Current and Proposed Novel Methods.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Haemodynamic and biomechanical biomarker analysis of carotid fibromuscular dysplasia via fluid-structure interaction.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2026Article
- A Novel Diastolic Doppler Index Less Affected by Aortic Arch Anomalies Co-existing with Coarctation.Pediatric cardiology · 2025Article
- CTA-Based Non-invasive Estimation of Pressure Gradients Across a CoA: a Validation Against Cardiac Catheterisation.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2021Article
- Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Valve Stenosis: The Role of Non-Invasive Imaging.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Towards improving the accuracy of aortic transvalvular pressure gradients: rethinking Bernoulli.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Invasive catheterization is associated with a low risk of serious complications. However, although it is the gold standard for measuring pressure gradients, it induces changes to blood flow and requires significant resources. Therefore, non-invasive alternatives are urgently needed. Pressure gradients are routinely estimated non-invasively in clinical settings using ultrasound and calculated with the simplified Bernoulli equation, a method with several limitations. A PubMed literature search on validation of non-invasive techniques was conducted, and studies were included if non-invasively estimated pressure gradients were compared with invasively measured pressure gradients in vivo. Pressure gradients were mainly estimated from velocities obtained with Doppler ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging. Most studies used the simplified Bernoulli equation, but more recent studies have employed the expanded Bernoulli and Navier⁻Stokes equations. Overall, the studies reported good correlation between non-invasive estimation of pressure gradients and catheterization. Despite having strong correlations, several studies reported the non-invasive techniques to either overestimate or underestimate the invasive measurements, thus questioning the accuracy of the non-invasive methods. In conclusion, more advanced imaging techniques may be needed to overcome the shortcomings of current methods.
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.