ArticleEuropean radiology2021
Prevalence of pathological FFR
Article in European radiology, 2021. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence-enhanced detection of subclinical coronary artery disease in athletes: diagnostic performance and limitations.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2024Article
- Impact of vessel morphology on CT-derived fractional-flow-reserve in non-obstructive coronary artery disease in right coronary artery.European radiology · 2024Article
- High Temporal Resolution Dual-Source Photon-Counting CT for Coronary Artery Disease: Initial Multicenter Clinical Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Coronary functional assessment in non-obstructive coronary artery disease: Present situation and future direction.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Coronary Artery Dimensions in Endurance Athletes by Computed Tomography Angiography: A Quantitative Analysis.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate computed tomography fractional flow reserve (FFR
methodsNinety-eight asymptomatic male marathon runners (age 53 ± 7 years) were enrolled in a prospective monocentric study and underwent coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). CCTA data were analyzed for visual coronary artery stenosis. FFR
resultsIn participants without coronary artery stenosis, abnormal FFR
conclusionsAbnormal FFR KEY POINTS: • Abnormal 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.