SynthesisThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2026
Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio for functional assessment of coronary lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2026. 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Angiography-derived coronary physiology has emerged as an attractive alternative to pressure-wire-based fractional flow reserve (FFR) for functional lesion assessment. Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio (µQFR) represents a simplified, single-view approach, but its diagnostic performance across diverse clinical settings remains incompletely defined. To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of µQFR for identifying functionally significant coronary lesions using invasive FFR as the reference standard. We performed a systematic review and diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis in accordance with PRISMA-DTA recommendations. Studies assessing µQFR against invasive FFR (≤ 0.80) with extractable lesion-level data were included. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled using a bivariate random-effects model. Secondary analyses explored performance in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and in calcified coronary lesions. Seven studies comprising 1,826 coronary lesions were included. µQFR demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.807 (95% CI 0.690-0.888) and specificity of 0.944 (95% CI 0.893-0.971), with a positive likelihood ratio of 14.41, negative likelihood ratio of 0.20, and diagnostic odds ratio of 70.6. Specificity remained consistently high, whereas sensitivity showed substantial variability. In exploratory subgroup analyses, sensitivity was 0.77 (95% CI 0.64-0.87) in TAVI patients (2 studies; 236 lesions) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.66-0.78) in calcified lesions (2 studies; 691 lesions); these findings are hypothesis-generating only. µQFR demonstrates promising diagnostic accuracy with consistently high specificity. However, its moderate sensitivity, negative likelihood ratio of 0.20, and reduced performance in calcified lesions limit its ability to safely exclude functionally significant disease. Prospective validation is required before µQFR can be recommended as a standalone decision-making tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42287499What 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.