Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37427088›Full record

ArticleJournal of interventional cardiology2023

Resting Full-Cycle Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve: A SWEDEHEART-Registry-Based Comparison of Two Physiological Indexes for Assessing Coronary Stenosis Severity.

Stephen Malmberg, Jörg Lauermann, Patric Karlström, Dario Gulin, Neshro Barmano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of interventional cardiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Long-term outcomes after resting full-cycle ratio and deferral of revascularization.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Patient-specificFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024
    Review
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

5 authors.

Stephen MalmbergDepartment of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2253-5092
Jörg LauermannDepartment of Internal Medicine, Ryhov County Hospital, Jönköping, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0982-0489
Patric KarlströmDepartment of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2441-0245
Dario GulinDepartment of Internal Medicine, Ryhov County Hospital, Jönköping, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8502-7816
Neshro BarmanoDepartment of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2012-7346

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The adenosine-requiring physiological index fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the gold-standard method for determining the significance of intermediate lesions, while the resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) is a novel nonhyperaemic index without the need for adenosine administration. The aim of this study was to investigate the degree of concordance between RFR and FFR in indicating the need for revascularisation in patients with intermediate coronary lesions. This was a retrospective, registry-based study utilising data from the SWEDEHEART registry. Patients treated at Ryhov County Hospital in Jönköping, Sweden, between the 1

Indexed as

Coronary StenosisFractional Flow Reserve, MyocardialAdenosineCardiac CatheterizationConstriction, PathologicCoronary AngiographyCoronary VesselsHumansPredictive Value of TestsRegistriesRetrospective StudiesSeverity of Illness IndexAdenosine

Identifiers

PMID37427088
PMCPMC10325873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.