ArticleWorld journal of cardiology2021
Efficacy and safety of distal radial approach for cardiac catheterization: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in World journal of cardiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endovascular Treatment of Malfunctioning Dialysis Fistulas: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis Comparing Transradial and Conventional Transvenous Access.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- A Multicenter Retrospective Study Evaluating Distal Radial Access vs. Conventional Transradial or Transvenous Access for Endovascular Treatment of Malfunctioning Dialysis Fistulas.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Distal Radial Access for Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization (TACE) of the Liver.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe traditional radial approach (RA) is recommended as the standard method for coronary angiography (CAG), while a distal RA (DRA) has been recently used for CAG.
aimTo assess the efficacy and safety of the DRA
methodsThe following databases were searched through December 2020: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Platform Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Individual randomized-controlled trials for adult patients undergoing cardiac catheterization were included. The primary outcomes were the successful cannulation rate and the incidence of radial artery spasm (RAS) and radial artery occlusion (RAO). Study selection, data abstraction and quality assessment were independently performed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
resultsThree randomized control trials and 13 registered trials were identified. The two approaches showed similar successful cannulation rates [risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72-1.13]. The DRA did not decrease RAS (RR 0.43, 95%CI: 0.08-2.49) and RAO (RR 0.48, 95%CI: 0.18-1.29). Patients with the DRA had a shorter hemostasis time in comparison to those with the RA (mean difference -6.64, 95%CI: -10.37 to -2.90). The evidence of certainty was low.
conclusionFor CAG, the DRA would be safer than the RA with comparable cannulation rates. Given the limited data, additional research, including studies with standard protocols, is necessary.
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.