ArticleBioMed research international2020
Quantitative Evaluation of Peripheral Arterial Blood Flow Using Peri-Interventional Fluoroscopic Parameters: An In Vivo Study Evaluating Feasibility and Clinical Utility.
Article in BioMed research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate various objective, quantitative, time-resolved fluoroscopic imaging parameters for use in the peri-interventional evaluation of stenotic peripheral arterial disease lesions.
resultsThe analysis of the TDC-derived parameters demonstrated significant differences between pre- and postinterventional flow rates in the ROI placed most distal to the stenosis, ROI 4. The AUC at ROI 4 (reported as a relative percentage of the AUC measured at ROI 1 proximal to the lesion) demonstrated a significant increase in the total flow (mean 67.84% vs. 128.68%,
conclusionAUC, FWHM, and TTP are objective, reproducible, quantifiable tools for the peri-interventional fluoroscopic evaluation of vessel stenoses. When compared to the standard subjective interpretation of fluoroscopic imagery, AUC, FWHM, and TTP offer interventionalists the advantage of having an objective, complementary method of evaluating the success of a procedure, potentially allowing for more precisely targeted and quantitatively determined treatment goals and improved patient outcomes. This retrospective study was approved by the local ethics committee under the Number 372/2018BO2. The trial was registered at the German clinical trials register under the number DRKS00017813.
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.