SynthesisClinical cardiology2026
Hand Dysfunction After Intervention via Distal Versus Conventional Transradial Access: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.
Synthesis in Clinical cardiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Hand Dysfunction After Intervention via Distal Versus Conventional Transradial Access: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.Clinical cardiology · 2026Pooled it
- Hand Dysfunction After Intervention via Distal Versus Conventional Transradial Access: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.Clinical cardiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is an important treatment for coronary artery disease (CAD). Distal transradial access (dTRA) has gained popularity as an alternative to conventional transradial access (TRA) in cardiovascular interventional procedures. However, some patients may experience hand dysfunction after undergoing TRA or dTRA procedures.
methodsIn this study, the literature from the PubMed and Web of Science (WOS) databases was reviewed and 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected. Meta-analysis and narrative synthesis were used to evaluate the hand dysfunction and vascular complications.
resultA total of 6903 participants were included in the study. The average age was 62.8 years, and 66.9% were male. In terms of hand motor dysfunction, pooled data from two trials showed that the risk of dTRA may be lower than that of TRA. In terms of hand sensory dysfunction, a pooled analysis of two studies showed that the incidence of numbness within 24 h postoperatively may be higher with dTRA than with TRA, but the incidence of persistent pain may be lower with dTRA than with TRA. Only one included study reported the incidence of nerve injury. Additionally, a pooled analysis of ten trials demonstrated that dTRA had a lower risk of radial artery occlusion (RAO) than TRA.
conclusionCompared with TRA, dTRA may be associated with a lower risk of hand clumsiness, persistent pain, RAO, and AVF, but a potentially higher incidence of hand numbness.
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.