Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36950895›Full record

SynthesisEuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology2023

Diagnostic accuracy of optical flow ratio: an individual patient-data meta-analysis.

Fukang Hu, Daixin Ding, Jelmer Westra, Yingguang Li, Wei Yu, Zhiqing Wang, Takashi Kubo, Juan Luis Gutiérrez Chico, Yundai Chen, William Wijns and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Fukang HuBiomedical Instrument Institute, School of Biomedical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Daixin DingThe Lambe Institute for Translational Research, Smart Sensors Laboratory and CURAM, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Jelmer WestraDepartment of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Yingguang LiKunshan Industrial Technology Research Institute, Suzhou, People's Republic of China.
Wei YuBiomedical Instrument Institute, School of Biomedical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Zhiqing WangDepartment of Cardiology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fujian, China.
Takashi KuboDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan.
Juan Luis Gutiérrez ChicoDepartment of Interventional Cardiology, Campo de Gibraltar Health Trust, Algeciras, Spain.
Yundai ChenDepartment of Cardiology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
William WijnsThe Lambe Institute for Translational Research, Smart Sensors Laboratory and CURAM, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Shengxian TuBiomedical Instrument Institute, School of Biomedical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · CNAarhus University Hospital · DKChinese PLA General Hospital · CNGibraltar Health Authority · GIUnion Hospital · CNWakayama Medical University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOptical flow ratio (OFR) is a novel method for the fast computation of fractional flow reserve (FFR) from optical coherence tomography.

aimsWe aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of OFR in assessing intermediate coronary stenosis using wire-based FFR as the reference.

methodsWe performed an individual patient-level meta-analysis of all available studies with paired OFR and FFR assessments. The primary outcome was vessel-level diagnostic concordance of the OFR and FFR, using a cut-off of ≤0.80 to define ischaemia and ≤0.90 to define suboptimal post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) physiology. This meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021287726).

resultsFive studies were finally included, providing 574 patients and 626 vessels (404 pre-PCI and 222 post-PCI) with paired OFR and FFR from 9 international centres. Vessel-level diagnostic concordance of the OFR and FFR was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 88%-94%), 87% (95% CI: 82%-91%), and 90% (95% CI: 87%-92%) in pre-PCI, post-PCI, and overall, respectively. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 84% (95% CI: 79%-88%), 94% (95% CI: 92%-96%), 90% (95% CI: 86%-93%), and 89% (95% CI: 86%-92%), respectively. Multivariate logistic regression indicated that a low pullback speed (odds ratio [OR] 7.02, 95% CI: 1.68-29.43; p=0.008) was associated with a higher risk of obtaining OFR values at least 0.10 higher than FFR. Increasing the minimal lumen area was associated with a lower risk of obtaining an OFR at least 0.10 lower than FFR (OR 0.39, 95% CI: 0.18-0.82; p=0.013).

conclusionsThis individual patient data meta-analysis demonstrated a high diagnostic accuracy of OFR. OFR has the potential to provide an improved integration of intracoronary imaging and physiological assessment for the accurate evaluation of coronary artery disease.

Indexed as

Coronary Artery DiseaseCoronary StenosisFractional Flow Reserve, MyocardialOptic FlowPercutaneous Coronary InterventionCoronary AngiographyHumansPredictive Value of Tests

Identifiers

PMID36950895
PMCPMC10242661
OpenAlexW4360601124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.