ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2025
A comparative study of stepping angiography and traditional segmental angiography in lower limb anterograde venography.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2025. 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
ObjectiveTo compare the application value of stepping angiography and traditional segmental angiography in lower limb anterograde venography.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted among 95 patients who underwent lower limb anterograde venography at the Hefei Third People's Hospital and the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui University of Chinese Medicine from September 2021 to December 2024. Among them, 50 patients who underwent traditional segmental angiography were assigned to the control group, while 45 patients who underwent stepping angiography were assigned to the observation group. Comparative assessments were performed between the two groups regarding image quality, angiography time, absorbed radiation dose, contrast agent dosage, and incidence of complications.ResultsThe image quality in the observation group was better than that in the control group. The average angiography time in the control group was 27.87 ± 4.98 min, while that in the observation group was 10.23 ± 2.88 min (
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.