ReviewArchives of medical science : AMS2025
Diagnostic performance of wireless fractional flow reserve: a meta-analysis.
Review in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate diagnostic performance of wireless fractional flow reserve (FFR) used in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Material and methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Clinical trial.gov databases were searched by computer search and manual retrieval. The search terms included fractional flow reserve, quantitative coronary angiography, computational fluid dynamics and CAD. The meta-analysis was conducted with Stata12.0. Clinical outcomes included accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (-LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and area under the receiver operating curve. Results: Nine studies comprising 2052 vessels were included in the present meta-analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, +LR, -LR, DOC and accuracy were 87% (95% CI: 83-94%), 88% (95% CI: 82-92%), 7.28 (95% CI: 4.78-11.08), 0.14 (95% CI: 0.10-0.21), 50.69 (95% CI: 25.22-101.88) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.96) respectively. No significant publication bias was detected. Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that the clinical performance such as accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of wireless FFR is good to detect stenotic lesions with pressure-wire measured FFR as a reference.
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.