This article highlights the role of meta-analysis as a statistical method for quantitatively summarizing existing research and reconciling conflicting findings. It discusses literature search methods for meta-analysis, the selection and interpretation of statistical models, and publication bias. Meta-analysis allows for the statistical consideration of homogeneity and heterogeneity among studies. Determining homogeneity and heterogeneity is crucial for selecting the appropriate meta-analysis model. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide a high level of evidence on treatment efficacy, especially when they include multicenter and multinational studies. In the case of well-researched disorders such as digestive cancer, meta-analysis can be useful in generalizing findings from existing papers, draw conclusions, and evaluate related medical technologies. Furthermore, these findings can be used to propose or enhance standards of care.

This article highlights the role of meta-analysis as a statistical method for quantitatively summarizing existing research and reconciling conflicting findings. It discusses literature search methods for meta-analysis, the selection and interpretation of statistical models, and publication bias. Meta-analysis allows for the statistical consideration of homogeneity and heterogeneity among studies. Determining homogeneity and heterogeneity is crucial for selecting the appropriate meta-analysis model. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide a high level of evidence on treatment efficacy, especially when they include multicenter and multinational studies. In the case of well-researched disorders such as digestive cancer, meta-analysis can be useful in generalizing findings from existing papers, draw conclusions, and evaluate related medical technologies. Furthermore, these findings can be used to propose or enhance standards of care.

This article highlights the role of meta-analysis as a statistical method for quantitatively summarizing existing research and reconciling conflicting findings. It discusses literature search methods for meta-analysis, the selection and interpretation of statistical models, and publication bias. Meta-analysis allows for the statistical consideration of homogeneity and heterogeneity among studies. Determining homogeneity and heterogeneity is crucial for selecting the appropriate meta-analysis model. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide a high level of evidence on treatment efficacy, especially when they include multicenter and multinational studies. In the case of well-researched disorders such as digestive cancer, meta-analysis can be useful in generalizing findings from existing papers, draw conclusions, and evaluate related medical technologies. Furthermore, these findings can be used to propose or enhance standards of care.

Background: The benefits of transradial access (TRA) over transfemoral access (TFA) for bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are uncertain because of the limited availability of device selection. This study aimed to compare the procedural differences and the in-hospital and long-term outcomes of TRA and TFA for bifurcation PCI using secondgeneration drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: Based on data from the Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry III, a retrospective registry of 2,648 patients undergoing bifurcation PCI with second-generation DES from 21 centers in South Korea, patients were categorized into the TRA group (n = 1,507) or the TFA group (n = 1,141). After propensity score matching (PSM), procedural differences, in-hospital outcomes, and device-oriented composite outcomes (DOCOs; a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) were compared between the two groups (772 matched patients each group). Results: Despite well-balanced baseline clinical and lesion characteristics after PSM, the use of the two-stent strategy (14.2% vs. 23.7%, P = 0.001) and the incidence of in-hospital adverse outcomes, primarily driven by access site complications (2.2% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.015), were significantly lower in the TRA group than in the TFA group. At the 5-year follow-up, the incidence of DOCOs was similar between the groups (6.3% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.639). Conclusion The findings suggested that TRA may be safer than TFA for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DESs. Despite differences in treatment strategy, TRA was associated with similar long-term clinical outcomes as those of TFA. Therefore, TRA might be the preferred access for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DES.