Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40171537›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025

Efficacy and safety of distal transradial access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis.

Qinyan Yang, Xianli Wei, Jianyu Wu, Chunlan Li, Yuechen Qin, Haijian Zeng, Mengtian Qin, Yue Zou, Shiming Zhang, Weiming Liang and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Qinyan Yang *The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Xianli Wei *The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Jianyu WuThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Chunlan LiThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Yuechen QinThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Haijian ZengThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Mengtian QinThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Yue ZouThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Shiming ZhangThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Weiming LiangThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Jie LiThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dTRA for coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in comparison to cTRA. Materials and methods: Four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were searched from their inception to 13 April 2024 for studies comparing dTRA and cTRA in coronary diagnostic or interventional catheterization. The meta-analysis evaluated radial artery occlusion (RAO), procedure success, the success rate of catheter puncture, the success rate of a single attempt, hematoma occurrence, radial artery spasms, puncture site bleeding, puncture time, procedural time, the dosage of contrast medium, and hemostasis time. Results: A total of 31 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with cTRA, dTRA significantly reduced the incidence of RAO [odds ratio (OR) = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.34-0.50, Conclusions: Our results revealed that dTRA is a workable and safe method for cardiovascular interventional diagnostics and treatment. It significantly reduces the incidence of RAO and hematoma, as well as shortens hemostasis time following surgery. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024596238, PROSPERO (CRD42024596238).

Indexed as

coronary angiographycoronary artery diseasedistal transradial accessmeta-analysispercutaneous coronary interventionradial artery occlusiontransradial access

Identifiers

PMID40171537
PMCPMC11959052

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.