ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2024
Validation of ultrasound velocimetry and computational fluid dynamics for flow assessment in femoral artery stenotic disease.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- In Vivo Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics for Determining the Pressure Gradient for Multi-segmental Femoropopliteal Disease.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Article
- A Dynamic 3D Human Liver Sinusoid Model for Mechanistic Interrogation of Fontan-Associated Liver Disease.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Using patient-specific computational fluid dynamics to assess intraprosthetic thrombus formation risk and guide relining after endovascular aneurysm repair.JVS-vascular science · 2026Article
- Vascular Flow Phantom of A Cohort-Based Averaged Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Design, Fabrication and Characterization.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the accuracy of high-framerate echo particle image velocimetry (ePIV) and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for determining velocity vectors in femoral bifurcation models through comparison with optical particle image velocimetry (oPIV). Approach: Separate femoral bifurcation models were built for oPIV and ePIV measurements of a non-stenosed (control) and a 75%-area stenosed common femoral artery. A flow loop was used to create triphasic pulsatile flow. In-plane velocity vectors were measured with oPIV and ePIV. Flow was simulated with CFD using boundary conditions from ePIV and additional duplex-ultrasound (DUS) measurements. Mean differences and 95%-limits of agreement (1.96*SD) of the velocity magnitudes in space and time were compared, and the similarity of vector complexity (VC) and time-averaged wall shear stress (TAWSS) was assessed. Results: Similar flow features were observed between modalities with velocities up to 110 and Conclusions: EPIV and CFD-ePIV can accurately measure complex flow features in the femoral bifurcation and around a stenosis. CFD-DUS showed larger deviations in velocities making it a less robust technique for hemodynamical assessment. The applied ePIV and CFD techniques enable two- and three-dimensional assessment of local hemodynamics with high spatiotemporal resolution and thereby overcome key limitations of current clinical modalities making them an attractive and cost-effective alternative for hemodynamical assessment in clinical practice.
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.