SynthesisInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2026
Transradial versus transfemoral access in carotid artery stenting: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Transradial artery access for carotid artery stenting: A pooled analysis.The neuroradiology journal · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of distal and conventional transradial access on procedure duration and radiation exposure in carotid artery stenting.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Safe Navigation of Guiding Catheters during Stenting for Common Carotid Artery Lesions: The "No-Touch" Technique.Cerebrovascular diseases extra · 2025Article
- Clinical Outcomes of Shifting from Transfemoral-First to Transradial-First Approach in Carotid Artery Stenting: A Retrospective Two-Timeframe Comparison at a Single Center.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
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
BackgroundThe carotid artery stenting (CAS) has two common access sites: transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA). However, there's no definitive answer to which one is superior.ObjectiveCompare TRA and TFA for the CAS.MethodsA systematic review of the literature of studies reporting both TRA and TFA results was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Embase were queried.ResultsThe meta-analysis examined nine studies comprising 7513 patients who underwent CAS. Of these, 6750 patients had TFA (90%), while 763 had TRA (10%). There was no significant difference in procedure success rates between TRA and TFA, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.99 (6/9; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00; I² = 9%, fixed effects). However, cross-over to TFA was more frequent in TRA (odds ratio (OR) 10.37 (6/9; 95% CI 5.18 to 20.77; I² = 17%, fixed effects)). There were no significant differences in terms of major access complications (RR = 0.88 (7/9; 95% CI: 0.29 to 2.63; I² = 0, fixed effects)), total access complications (RR = 1.10 (6/9; 95% CI: 0.56 to 2.15; I² = 7%, fixed effects)), and mean difference in length of stay (Mean difference of -0.08 (3/9; 95% CI -0.18 to 0.02; I² = 0%, fixed effects)).ConclusionThere were no significant differences between TFA and TRA in terms of procedure success rates, time, complications, and length of stay, although cross-over to TFA was more common in TRA cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.