ArticleKorean circulation journal2026
Diagnostic Performance of Angiography-Derived FFR According to the Analysis Factors.
Article in Korean circulation journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06305572 (Diagnostic Accuracy of Quantitative Flow Ratio for Hemodynamic Assessment of Coronary Artery Stenosis), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Diagnostic Accuracy of Quantitative Flow Ratio for Hemodynamic Assessment of Coronary Artery Stenosis: Prospective Observational Study
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesQuantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a method for estimating fractional flow reserve (FFR) without the use of an invasive pressure wire or hyperemic agent. However, the reasons for variation in QFR accuracy across studies and the factors associated with its accuracy remain unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic performance of QFR under different clinical and analysis conditions.
methodsThis multicenter trial prospectively enrolled patients undergoing coronary angiography with an indication for invasive FFR. The composite score for the QFR analysis factors was calculated based on the presence or absence of the angiographic factor, system factor, lesion factor, and subjective difficulty factor. The diagnostic performance of the QFR was assessed for each composite score using FFR ≤0.80 as the reference.
resultsA total of 285 vessels from 239 patients were analyzed. The median FFR and QFR values were 0.83 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.78-0.88) and 0.83 (IQR, 0.76-0.89), respectively. Using FFR ≤0.80 as a reference, QFR showed an overall diagnostic accuracy of 81.4%. Higher composite scores were associated with lower diagnostic performance of QFR in predicting FFR ≤0.80 (p-for-trend=0.010). The diagnostic accuracy of QFR ranged from 94.1% in vessels with low composite scores to 73.7% in those with high composite scores.
conclusionsThe diagnostic accuracy of QFR decreases with increasing lesion complexity, system factors, lower angiographic image quality, and analysis difficulty. These findings suggest that specific lesion, system, and imaging-related factors can significantly impact the reliability of QFR in clinical practice.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06305572.
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.