ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Incremental Diagnostic Value of CT Fractional Flow Reserve Using Subtraction Method in Patients with Severe Calcification: A Pilot Study.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integration of Magnetocardiography and Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography With Machine Learning for Detection of Functionally Significant Myocardial Ischemia.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Subtraction fractional flow reserve with computed tomography and pericoronary fat attenuation index enhances the identification of revascularization needs in patients.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Diagnostic value of deep learning reconstruction-based subtraction CT-FFR in patients with calcified-related stenosis or stent implantation.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve: Developing A Gold Standard for Coronary Artery Disease Diagnostics.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- What More Can Be Delivered to Future Patients with Coronary Syndromes?Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Diagnostic performance of coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography derived fractional flow reserve (CTFFR) in patients with coronary artery calcification: insights from multi-center experiments in China.Annals of translational medicine · 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
16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although on-site workstation-based CT fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) is an emerging method for assessing vessel-specific ischemia in coronary artery disease, severe calcification is a significant factor affecting CT-FFR's diagnostic performance. The subtraction method significantly improves the diagnostic value with respect to anatomic stenosis for patients with severe calcification in coronary CT angiography (CCTA). We evaluated the diagnostic capability of CT-FFR using the subtraction method (subtraction CT-FFR) in patients with severe calcification. This study included 32 patients with 45 lesions with severe calcification (Agatston score >400) who underwent both CCTA and subtraction CCTA using 320-row area detector CT and also received invasive FFR within 90 days. The diagnostic capabilities of CT-FFR and subtraction CT-FFR were compared. The sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values (PPVs), and negative predictive values (NPVs) of CT-FFR vs. subtraction CT-FFR for detecting hemodynamically significant stenosis, defined as FFR ≤ 0.8, were 84.6% vs. 92.3%, 59.4% vs. 75.0%, 45.8% vs. 60.0%, and 90.5% vs. 96.0%, respectively. The area under the curve for subtraction CT-FFR was significantly higher than for CT-FFR (0.84 vs. 0.70) (
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.