ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Morphometric Assessment for Functional Evaluation of Coronary Stenosis with Optical Coherence Tomography and the Optical Flow Ratio in a Vessel with Single Stenosis.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Performance of Angiography-Derived Quantitative Flow Ratio: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic efficacy of the optical flow ratio in patients with coronary heart disease: A meta-analysis.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Review of Optical Imaging in Coronary Artery Disease Diagnosis.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- The effects of cardiac structure, valvular regurgitation, and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction on the diagnostic accuracy of Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of optical coherence tomography (OCT) in identifying functionally significant coronary stenosis in a vessel with single stenosis. Background: The OCT-based morphofunctional computational method for deriving the optical flow ratio (OFR) has diagnostic value, as it can identify the functional severity of coronary stenosis, but the ability of the OFR to aid the OCT in determining coronary stenosis hemodynamics in single-stenosis lesion remains unclear. Methods: 74 vessels with single stenosis were studied in 69 patients; all cases were performed through OCT and quantitative flow ratio (QFR), and OCT images were used to perform OFR. Results: Among vessels with single stenosis, OFR showed a good correlation with QFR (r = 0.86; p < 0.001). Taking QFR as the standard, the vessel-level diagnosis accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of OFR were 90% (95% CI: 81 to 96), 94% (95% CI: 77 to 99), 88% (95% CI: 74 to 96), 85% (95% CI: 68 to 94) and 95% (95% CI: 82 to 99), respectively. Among vessels with OFR/QFR concordance, both the minimum lumen area (MLA) and minimum lumen diameter (MLD) showed excellent diagnostic efficiency (MLA: area under the curve (AUC) = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.85 to 0.98, p < 0.001; MLD: AUC = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.86 to 0.98, p < 0.001) in determining the functional significance of coronary stenosis in a single stenosis lesion, and the best cutoff values were 1.55 mm2 and 1.40 mm. Conclusions: OFR has a good correlation with QFR. OCT-measured MLA and MLD have excellent diagnostic efficiency in identifying the hemodynamic significance of coronary stenosis in a vessel with single stenosis.
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.