ReviewCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2016
Radiation Exposures Associated With Radial and Femoral Coronary Interventions.
Review in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiation protection in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
opinion statementThe volume of cardiac diagnostic procedures involving the use of ionizing radiation has increased rapidly in recent years, and the radiation exposure experienced by patients undergoing any medical imaging procedure has recently obtained a growing attention. Transradial (TR) access is being increasingly used worldwide for diagnostic coronary angiography (CA), and percutaneous coronary interventions, since it offers several benefits as compared to transfemoral (TF) access, such as by reducing hemostasis time and vascular complications, increased patient comfort, reduced hospital stay, and lower cost. In contrast, TR CA is thought to be associated with increased radiation exposure parameters compared with the traditional TF access. Although experienced operators may almost counterbalance this shortcoming, the increase in radiation exposure associated with TR approach seems not to be present in most clinical settings.
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.