ReviewHerz2020
[Is FFR
Review in Herz, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aortic Valve Calcification Scores versus CT-FFR: Prediction of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.Cardiology · 2026Article
- [Morphological and functional diagnostics of coronary artery disease by computed tomography].Herz · 2023Review
- [German Radiological Society and the Professional Association of German Radiologists position paper on coronary computed tomography: clinical evidence and quality of patient care in chronic coronary syndrome].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
- Interrater variability of ML-based CT-FFR during TAVR-planning: influence of image quality and coronary artery calcifications.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- [Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in cardiac diagnostics-how to choose the right modality : A guide based on the new guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2022Review
- Stable patients with suspected myocardial ischemia: comparison of machine-learning computed tomography-based fractional flow reserve and stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging to detect myocardial ischemia.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2022Observational
- [Update on coronary CT-more than just anatomical imaging? : Current guidelines and functional CT techniques for the quantification of stenoses].Der Radiologe · 2020Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is already of great importance for the primary diagnostic testing for coronary artery disease (CAD) due to its high negative predictive value (NPV) and high sensitivity but, however, limited specificity. The specificity of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) could be increased by integrating the fractional flow reserve (FFR) into the invasive workflow with proof of the hemodynamic relevance of a morphologically detected coronary stenosis. New noninvasive methods of FFR calculations in CT based on computational fluid dynamics (CFD) or machine learning (ML) demonstrate very encouraging results; however, the widespread use of FFR
Indexed as
Identifiers
32494946What 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.