SynthesisMedicine2018
Transradial vs transfemoral access in patients with hepatic malignancy and undergoing hepatic interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Guideline
- All You Need to Know About TACE: A Comprehensive Review of Indications, Techniques, Efficacy, Limits, and Technical Advancement.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Chinese expert consensus on transradial access in percutaneous peripheral interventions.Journal of interventional medicine · 2023Article
- Transradial Access for Transarterial Radioembolization (TARE) in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Comparison with Transfemoral Access.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2023Article
- The feasibility and safety of the brachial artery approach in the treatment of hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy: a retrospective study.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Article
- Transradial versus transfemoral approach for TACE: a retrospective study.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare transradial access (TRA) approach with transfemoral access (TFA) approach in patients undergoing hepatic interventions.
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library database to identify relevant available articles. Patients' preference, success rate, intra- and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. The risk difference (RD), relative risk (RR), and weighted mean difference (WMD) values were reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used RevMan 5.3 to perform the pooled analyses.
resultsNine cohort studies were included. A total of 1096 procedures were performed in 877 patients. Of those, 545 procedures (49.7%) were performed by TRA, and 551 procedures (50.3%) were performed by TFA. Patients were significantly prefer the TRA (86.5%) to the TFA (13.5%) (RD = 0.88, P < .00001). The procedure time in TRA groups was longer (WMD = 3.36, 95% CI 1.24-5.47, P = .002). But there were no significant difference in terms of success rate, fluoroscopy time, radiation dosage, contrast volume, and postoperative vascular complications.
conclusionFor patients suffer from primary or secondary hepatic malignancy and undergoing hepatic interventions, the present meta-analysis demonstrated that patients prefer the TRA approach to the TFA approach. But the procedure time is longer in TRA group.
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.