Trial reportScientific reports2024
Randomized study for a novel elbow joint fixation device on postoperative complications in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary diagnostic or therapeutic procedures through the brachial artery.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Brachial artery access for coronary diagnostic or therapeutic procedures is associated with a greater risk of vascular complications. To determine whether 3D printing of a novel elbow joint fixation device could reduce postoperative complications after percutaneous coronary diagnostic or therapeutic procedures through the brachial artery. Patients who underwent percutaneous coronary diagnostic or therapeutic procedures by brachial access were randomly assigned to receive either a 3D-printed elbow joint fixation device (brace group) or traditional compression (control group) from March 2023 to December 2023. The severity of puncture site-related discomfort at 24 h postsurgery was significantly lower in the brace group (P = 0.014). Similarly, the upper arm calibration rate at 24 h postsurgery was significantly lower in the brace group [0.024 (0.019-0.046) vs. 0.077 (0.038-0.103), P < 0.001], as was the forearm calibration rate [0.026 (0.024-0.049) vs. 0.050 (0.023-0.091), P = 0.007]. The brace group had a significantly lower area of subcutaneous hemorrhage at 24 h postsurgery [0.255 (0-1.00) vs. 1 (0.25-1.75) cm
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.