ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2021
Clinical prediction models of fractional flow reserve: an exploration of the current evidence and appraisal of model performance.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2021. 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.
- Impact of calcification on Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio for physiological assessment of intermediate coronary stenoses.Cardiology journal · 2024Article
- Effect of 320-row CT reconstruction technology on fractional flow reserve derived from coronary CT angiography based on machine learning: single- versus multiple-cardiac periodic images.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- Diagnostic performance of AccuFFRangio in the functional assessment of coronary stenosis compared with pressure wire-derived fractional flow reserve.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInvasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) is a standard indicator of coronary stenoses' hemodynamic severity. Clinical prediction models (CPMs) may help differentiate ischemic from non-ischemic lesions without using a pressure wire but by integrating related variables. This approach differs from that of physics-based models. However, it is not yet known which CPMs are the most reliable at detecting hemodynamic significance.
methodsA systematic review was performed of relevant publications that developed or validated any FFR CPMs from inception to April 2019 in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases by two independent authors. The risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the prediction model risk of the bias assessment tool (PROBAST).
resultsA total of 11 unique CPMs and 5 subsequent external validation studies were identified. The prevalence of hemodynamically significant lesions (FFR ≤0.80) across the studies had a median of 37.1% (range: 20.7-68.0%). Lesion length, percent diameter stenosis, and minimal lumen diameter were the three most frequently used variables in the CPMs. Of the 11 FFR CPMs, 9 (82%) exhibited strong discrimination [area under the curve (AUC) >0.75], and 5 (45%) had been subject to external validation; however, calibration was only available for 3 models (27%). There was a high degree of applicability; however, none of the studies was assessed as having a low risk of bias. A CPM was identified that had undergone rigorous validation and calibration: the DILEMMA score (three validations; median AUC, 0.83).
conclusionsAlmost half of the existing FFR CPMs had been externally validated. Due to their good discrimination abilities, these FFR CPMs are useful tools that could reduce the need for invasive hemodynamic measurements. Future research that adheres to methodological guidelines should be undertaken to develop high-quality models in this setting. (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019125011).
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.