SynthesisPloS one2020
Radial artery harvesting in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery-Endoscopic or open method? A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic versus open radial artery harvesting for coronary artery bypass grafting: an updated systematic review, meta-analysis, and GRADE assessment.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Pooled it
- Chronic Neuropathy of the Lateral Antebrachial Cutaneous Nerve after Endoscopic Radial Artery Harvest: A Case Report.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Endoscopic Versus Open Radial Artery Harvesting: A Population-Level Analysis.The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Complications and Patient Satisfaction After Endoscopic Radial Artery Harvest: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Determinants of graft patency after coronary artery bypass grafting.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- International trends in radial artery usage for coronary artery bypass grafting.European heart journal open · 2025Article
- Reconstruction Technique Options for Achieving Total Arterial Revascularization and Multiple Arterial Grafting.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- The evidence for radial artery grafting: When and when not?JTCVS techniques · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We analyzed the clinical outcomes of open radial artery harvesting (OAH) and endoscopic radial artery harvesting (EAH) undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We designed this meta-analysis conducted using Pubmed, Medline, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. Articles with comparisons of OAH and EAH undergoing CABG were included. Primary outcomes included the wound infection rate, the wound complication rate, neurological complications of the forearm, in-hospital mortality, long-term survival, and the patency rate. The results of our study included six randomized controlled trials (RCTs), two non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) with matching, and 10 NRCTs. In total, 2919 patients were included in 18 studies, while 1187 (40.7%) and 1732 (59.3%) patients received EAH and OAH, respectively. EAH was associated with a lower incidence of wound infection (RR = 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.14 to 0.60, p = 0.03), and neurological complications over the harvesting site (RR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.62, p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality, long-term survival (over one year), and the graft patency rate. According to our analysis, endoscopic radial artery harvesting can improve the outcome of the harvesting site, without affecting the mortality, long-term survival, and graft patency.
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.