SynthesisJournal of evidence-based medicine2025
Comparison of Coronary Angiographic-Derived and Intracoronary Imaging-Based Fractional Flow Reserve in Assessing Coronary Artery Stenosis Severity: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of evidence-based medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of Coronary Angiographic-Derived and Intracoronary Imaging-Based Fractional Flow Reserve in Assessing Coronary Artery Stenosis Severity: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Atherosclerotic Renovascular Disease: A Re-evaluation of Lesion Severity and Intervention.Kidney medicine · 2026Review
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
Abstract
objectiveThis systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the accuracy of coronary angiographic-derived fractional flow reserve (Angio-FFR), optical coherence tomography (OCT)-FFR, and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-FFR in evaluating the severity of coronary artery stenosis.
methodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 2010 to April 1, 2024 for studies on the accuracy assessment of Angio-FFR, OCT-FFR, and IVUS-FFR. A network meta-analysis was performed with accuracy and analysis of variance models. The diagnostic performance was evaluated through absolute sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), diagnostic dominance index (DDI), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).
resultsThe analysis included 86 studies (16,552 lesions). Network meta-analysis showed that IVUS-FFR demonstrated the highest absolute SEN of 0.92 (0.91, 0.94), while OCT-FFR demonstrated the highest absolute SPE of 0.92 (0.91, 0.94). In comparison to Angio-FFR, intracoronary imaging (ICI)-FFR demonstrated superior diagnostic performance, with a DDI and DOR of 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.01) versus 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94, 0.98) and 79.18 (95% CI: 62.20, 92.35) versus 56.15 (95% CI: 52.86, 59.29), respectively. Furthermore, ICI-FFR demonstrated significantly greater overall accuracy than Angio-FFR, with a relative risk of 1.03 (95% CI: 1.01-1.04).
conclusionThis comprehensive network meta-analysis establishes that ICI-FFR provides superior diagnostic performance for coronary artery stenosis assessment compared to Angio-FFR. These findings support the clinical value of ICI modalities in functional stenosis evaluation.
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.