ReviewCurrent opinion in cardiology2019
The role of coronary reactivity testing in women with no obstructive coronary artery disease.
Review in Current opinion in cardiology, 2019. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding the Nature and Impact of Chest Pain in Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome.CJC open · 2026Article
- Coronary microvascular dysfunction in pregnancy: time to pay closer attention?Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Pathophysiologic Basis and Diagnostic Approaches for Ischemia With Non-obstructive Coronary Arteries: A Literature Review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Coronary vasospasm: A narrative review.World journal of cardiology · 2021Review
- Report from a large and comprehensive single-center Women's Health Cardiology Clinic.Women's health (London, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewTwo-thirds of women with signs and symptoms of ischemia and no obstructive coronary artery disease (INOCA) have abnormal coronary reactivity. These women are challenging to assess, diagnose and manage because of a lack of evidence-based guidelines. Furthermore, they are considered to be at 'low risk' by most physicians, often receive no specific therapy and tend to be dismissed from subspecialty care. RECENT
findingsCoronary reactivity testing (CRT) is considered the reference-standard for evaluation of epicardial and microvascular coronary function in response to various vasoactive agents. It provides a comprehensive vascular function assessment for diagnosis, a guide for management, and has prognostic benefit that outweighs the risk of the procedure. We recently demonstrated the prognostic value of assessing coronary vascular reactivity in women with signs and symptoms of ischemia, especially those with no obstructive coronary artery disease. SUMMARY: Invasive CRT is a feasible, useful method to identify coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) and risk stratify women with INOCA. It has a comparable safety record with other invasive procedures. Future research is directed at optimizing patient selection, streamlining of invasive CRT methods using user-friendly catheters to enhance feasibility in the routine clinical setting, and optimizing treatment protocols, with clinical trials designed to evaluate outcomes.
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.