ReviewCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2020
Physiological Assessment of Coronary Lesions in 2020.
Review in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pericoronary adipose tissue radiomics enhances prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events beyond CCTA-derived functional parameters in coronary atherosclerosis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Review of Optical Imaging in Coronary Artery Disease Diagnosis.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Harnessing Artificial Intelligence in Interventional Cardiology: A Systematic Review of Current Applications.Cureus · 2025Review
- Evolving Role of Coronary CT Angiography in Coronary Angiography and Intervention: A State-of-the-Art Review.Current cardiology reports · 2024Review
- Intravascular Imaging versus Physiological Assessment versus Biomechanics-Which Is a Better Guide for Coronary Revascularization.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Case Report: Invasive and Non-invasive Hemodynamic Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease: Strengths and Weaknesses.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Diagnostic performance of CT-derived resting distal to aortic pressure ratio (resting Pd/Pa)Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Brazilian Society of Cardiology Guidelines on Unstable Angina and Acute Myocardial Infarction without ST-Segment Elevation - 2021.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2021 · on this mapArticle
- Physiologic Assessment of Coronary Stenosis: Current Status and Future Directions.Current cardiology reports · 2021Review
- Article
- Angiography-derived physiology versus pressure wire-based fractional flow reserve for coronary revascularization guidance: A systematic review and meta-analysis.JRSM cardiovascular diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewPhysiological assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD) is an essential component of the interventional cardiology toolbox. However, despite long-term data demonstrating improved outcomes, physiology-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains underutilized in current practice. This review outlines the indications and technical aspects involved in evaluating coronary stenosis physiology, focusing on the latest developments in the field. RECENT
findingsBeyond fractional flow reserve (FFR), non-hyperemic pressure ratios (NHPR) that assess coronary physiology at rest without hyperemia now abound. Additional advances in other alternative FFR approaches, including non-invasive coronary CT (FFR
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.