ArticleFrontiers in neurology2024
Hemodynamic assessment of intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis: comparison between invasive non-hyperemic pressure ratio and angiography-derived quantitative flow ratio.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Haemodynamic and biomechanical biomarker analysis of carotid fibromuscular dysplasia via fluid-structure interaction.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2026Article
- Using flow ratio of peritumoral artery/renal aorta from DSA imaging to predict high-risk clear cell renal cell carcinoma.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Endovascular treatment and clinical outcomes in minor ischemic stroke due to large-vessel disease: a retrospective study.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Challenges and Optimization of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for Coronary Bifurcation Lesions.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Noninvasive MRA-derived fractional flow for intracranial stenosis: methodological evaluation and hemodynamic insights.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the quantitative flow ratio (QFR) for hemodynamic exploration of intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis, using the invasive cerebrovascular pressure ratio (CVPR) and resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) as reference standards. Materials and methods: Patients with symptomatic unifocal intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis were included. The CVPR was defined as the ratio of the proximal and distal pressures. All patients underwent angioplasty under general anesthesia. The QFR was calculated based on digital subtraction angiography. Using the CVPR as a reference, we compared its correlation with the QFR across different degrees and locations of stenosis. Results: The CVPR and QFR were measured in 34 vessels of 32 patients. The QFR demonstrated a high correlation and excellent agreement( Conclusion: There was a strong correlation between the QFR and wire-based CVPR, especially for anterior circulation lesions before intervention. The QFR may serve as a predictive factor for evaluating hemodynamic changes in intracranial atherosclerotic 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.