ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2022
Diagnostic comparison of automatic and manual TIMI frame-counting-generated quantitative flow ratio (QFR) values.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lesion length-dependent effects of quantitative flow ratio-guided percutaneous coronary intervention.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2026Article
- Quantitative Flow Ratio-Guided vs. Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of One-Year Clinical Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a computational measurement of FFR (fractional flow reserve), calculated from coronary angiography. Latest QFR software automates TIMI frame counting (TFC), which occurs during the flow step of QFR analyses, making the analysis faster and more reproducible. The objective is to determine the diagnostic performance of QFR values obtained from analyses using automatic TFC compared to those obtained from analyses using manual TFC. This was a single-arm clinical trial that used the prospective analysis of the coronary angiographic image series of 97 patients who underwent evaluation of stable coronary artery disease with FFR/iFR at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC, USA. Automatic and manual TFC QFR values were obtained from the analyses of each of the 97 patients' image series, with manual TFC QFR values as the current gold standard for comparison. The diagnostic performance of automatic TFC QFR values was measured as follows: sensitivity was 0.87 (95% CI 0.66-0.97) and specificity was 1.00 (95% CI 0.9514-1.00), positive predictive value (PPV) was 1.00 (95%CI 1.00-1.00), while the NPV was 0.96 (95% CI 0.96-0.99). Overall accuracy was 96.91% (95% CI 91.23%-99.36%). The agreement as illustrated by the Bland-Altman plot shows a bias of 0.0023 (SD 0.0208) and narrow limits of agreement (LOA): Upper LOA 0.0573 and Lower LOA - 0.0528. The area under curve (AUC) was 0.996. QFR values generated from automatic TFC are comparable to those generated from manual TFC in diagnostic capability. The most recent software update produces values equivalent to those of the previous manual option, and can therefore be used interchangeably.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37726521What 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.