ArticleThe ultrasound journal2025
Ultrasound-guided vs. Non-ultrasound-guided femoral artery puncture techniques: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in The ultrasound journal, 2025. 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.
- Iatrogenic femoral needle fracture during arterial blood gas sampling and an unplanned operation - A perioperative patient safety report.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Protected complex high-risk indicated percutaneous coronary intervention in severe left ventricular dysfunction: an illustrative case highlighting patient selection, procedural planning, execution, and device management.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
- Optimizing protected PCI strategies in the setting of chronic kidney disease and advanced coronary artery disease: a clinical case-based discussion.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
- Enhancing Tip Detection by Pre-Training with Synthetic Data for Ultrasound-Guided Intervention.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the effectiveness of ultrasound-guided (US) versus non-US femoral artery puncture (FAP) methods, including fluoroscopy-guided (FL) and non-guided (NG) techniques. MATERIALS: This meta-analysis included 11 randomized controlled trials and 1 non-randomized retrospective study, comprising a total of 12 studies involving 5534 patients across diverse clinical settings. Studies varied in operator experience, institutional settings, and procedural protocols. Key outcomes assessed included complication rates, vessel access time, first-pass success rates, number of attempts, and the risk of accidental venipuncture.
resultsAnalysis of the heterogeneous dataset showed that guided techniques were associated with reduced complication rates compared to NG methods (pooled odds ratio (OR): 0.45, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.28-0.73). US guidance was associated with decreased vessel access time (mean difference: - 16.30 s, 95% CI - 29.83 to - 2.76), higher first-pass success rates (pooled OR: 3.54, 95% CI 2.36 to 5.30), and required fewer attempts compared to non-US techniques. US guidance also showed lower risk of inadvertent venipuncture (pooled OR: 0.22, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.34).
conclusionThis meta-analysis suggests potential benefits of US femoral artery puncture techniques over non-US methods, while acknowledging significant heterogeneity across studies. The observed advantages in procedural outcomes varied across different clinical settings and operator experience levels. These findings provide setting for institutional decision-making regarding the implementation of guided puncture methods, considering factors such as operator expertise, resource availability, and specific patient populations.
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.