SynthesisJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2026
Safety and efficacy of distal versus conventional radial artery cannulation for invasive blood pressure monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the safety and effectiveness of distal radial artery (DRA) versus conventional radial artery (CRA) catheterization for invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring. This meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials published up to December 30, 2025 were systematically searched in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and SinoMed. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 18.0, and evidence quality was evaluated with the GRADE system. 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1,790 participants were included. For the primary outcomes, compared with CRA, DRA was associated with lower incidences of haematoma (RR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.24-0.73), catheter blockage (RR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.14-0.81), and bleeding (RR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.11-0.59), but a longer catheter insertion time (MD = 26.89, 95% CI: 5.28-48.50). For the secondary outcomes, DRA was associated with a shorter haemostasis time and reduced waveform instability, with no significant differences in first-attempt success rate or pain scores. Subgroup analysis showed a higher first-attempt success rate in patients aged ≤ 65 years (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.02-1.28). DRA catheterization for invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring appears to be associated with fewer complications and more stable arterial waveform acquisition than CRA catheterization, despite a longer insertion time. DRA may represent a feasible alternative in surgical and intensive care settings; however, further high-quality studies are needed to confirm its long-term safety and generalizability.
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.