ReviewClinical medicine (London, England)2019
Assessment of coronary physiology - the evidence and implications.
Review in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intravascular Imaging Versus Physiology Assessment for Intermediate Lesions During PCI.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- The Pullback Pressure Gradient: Transforming Invasive Coronary Physiology from Lesion Assessment to Disease Pattern Characterization-A Perspective.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Specialisation in medicine - alpha dog or colony ant?Clinical medicine (London, England) · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Use of angiography for the assessment of coronary lesions is limited by its inability to provide information regarding the functional significance of stenoses. A number of studies have demonstrated the presence of ischaemia to be the most important determinant of the benefit associated with coronary revascularisation in stable coronary artery disease. Assessment of intra-coronary physiology can guide percutaneous coronary intervention, and is often used for angiographically borderline stenoses. There is now increasing evidence to suggest that more routine use can improve clinical outcomes. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the most established measure of intra-coronary physiology, but is currently under-utilised. The main drawback of FFR is the dependence on a pharmacological infusion to maintain hyperaemia. An alternative technique which measures flow at a specific point in the cardiac cycle (instantaneous wave-free ratio) has been developed which obviates the need for hyperaemia and may replace FFR as the default measure.
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.