Trial reportIndian heart journal
A comparative assessment of Dorsal radial artery access versus classical radial artery access for percutaneous coronary angiography-a randomized control trial (DORA trial).
Trial report in Indian heart journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 6 of them syntheses 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Hand Dysfunction After Intervention via Distal Versus Conventional Transradial Access: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.Clinical cardiology · 2026Pooled it
- Distal versus proximal radial access in coronary angiography: a meta-analysis.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Distal Radial Artery Access versus Proximal Radial Artery Access for Cardiac Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of distal transradial access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Transradial artery access for carotid artery stenting: A pooled analysis.The neuroradiology journal · 2024Pooled it
- Safety and Effectiveness of Coronary Angiography or Intervention through the Distal Radial Access: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Distal versus proximal transradial access and radial artery occlusion: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Review
- "Distal radial first": feasibility and safety for coronary angiography and PCI in Australia.AsiaIntervention · 2025Article
- Article
- Incidence and Predictors of Early and Late Radial Artery Occlusion after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Angiography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Can Distal Radial Access Replace Conventional Radial Access for Coronary Catheterization? A Study Comparing Puncture Time, Attempts, Patient and Operator Comfort.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2024Article
- Comparison Between Distal Trans-radial Access and Conventional Trans-radial Access for Coronary Angiography.Cureus · 2023Article
- Arterial Accesses in Coronary Angiography and Intervention-Review with a Focus on Prognostic Relevance.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Incidence of Radial Artery Occlusion in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention via Trans Radial Access.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis is an open-label randomized control trial with a parallel assignment with single masking comparing patients undergoing coronary angiography via dorsal radial and classical radial access.
methodsStudy done at three tertiary cardiac care centers for two years. A total of 970 patients were finally recruited for the study. Patients were randomly selected for dorsal radial artery access Group A (485 patients) and classical radial artery access Group B (485 patients) without any bias for age & sex.
resultsOn comparative assessment both techniques are found to be equal in terms of procedural success rate. While dorsal access was superior in terms of fewer incidences of forearm radial artery occlusion, radial artery spasm, less post-procedure persistence of pain, and hand clumsiness. In comparison to this, the number of puncture attempts and time to achieve post-procedure hemostasis is less in classical radial access.
conclusionSo both techniques have pros and coins and it is the discretion of interventionists to adopt which technique.
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.