ArticleBMJ open2026
Comparison of effectiveness and safety of different haemostatic materials in patients undergoing transradial coronary intervention and diagnosis: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEffective compression haemostasis is essential after transradial coronary procedures. However, evidence directly comparing different haemostatic materials remains limited. This study aims to compare and rank the efficacy and safety of different haemostatic materials used as adjuncts to compression after transradial coronary angiography and/or percutaneous coronary intervention, and to explore whether compression modality modifies their relative effects. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will systematically search nine databases (Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Wanfang Data, VIP Database and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) for randomized controlled trials on post-transradial access (TRA) compression haemostasis with different haemostatic materials, from database inception to December 2025. Supplementary searches will be conducted in ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, academic search engines and reference lists of included studies. Two reviewers will independently perform study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane Risk of Bias V.2 tool. A network meta-analysis will be conducted within a frequentist framework using Stata V.16.0. Heterogeneity, inconsistency, small-study effects, evidence quality, sensitivity and the assumption of transitivity will be assessed. Subgroup analyses will be performed according to compression modality (manual vs mechanical) and, where data permit, other prespecified study-level characteristics that may modify treatment effects. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this study is a systematic review and network meta-analysis based on published data, ethical approval is not required. The results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at academic conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251250499.
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.