ArticleScientific reports2025
Optimal vein access selection in adrenal vein sampling via upper extremity approach: a retrospective analysis of 325 cases.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In order to provide some references for vein approach selection in adrenal vein sampling (AVS), this retrospective study analyzed 325 cases of primary aldosteronism (PA) patients who underwent AVS via the upper extremity vein approach, comparing the differences in complications and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores through median cubital vein (MCV), basilic vein (BV), and cephalic vein (CV). The results indicated no significant difference in the incidence of venous spasm (right MCV vs. right BV vs. left MCV vs. left BV: 4.2 vs. 5.9 vs. 5.3 vs. 0.0%, p>0.05) and VAS scores between AVS performed using the MCV and the BV. However, the right CV access was associated with a relatively higher incidence of venous spasm (right CV: 20% vs. right MCV: 4.2%, p<0.05) and higher rate of thrombosis formation (right CV: 5.7% vs. right MCV: 0.0%, p<0.05) than right MCV, accompanied by more severe pain. The study suggests that bilateral MCV and BV are both viable options vein access for AVS. When neither the MCV nor the BV on one side is accessible, it may be more prudent to opt for the MCV or BV on the contralateral side rather than the CV.
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.