ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2017
Simulator training to minimize ionizing radiation exposure in the catheterization laboratory.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Next generation-Education and training in rhythmology : Perspectives from Heidelberg].Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2025Review
- Organ-based estimation and minimization of clinician's X-ray dose.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2022Article
- 3D-printed heart models for hands-on training in pediatric cardiology - the future of modern learning and teaching?GMS journal for medical education · 2022Article
- Cardiovascular imaging 2017 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2018Article
- Simulation Training: Evaluating the Instructor's Contribution to a Wizard of Oz Simulator in Obstetrics and Gynecology Ultrasound Training.JMIR medical education · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To learn about radiation and how to lower it. Patients and operators are routinely exposed to high doses of ionizing radiation during catheterization procedures. This increased exposure to ionizing radiation is partially due to a lack of awareness to the effects of ionizing radiation, and lack of knowledge on the distribution and behavior of scattered radiation. A simulator, which incorporates data on scattered ionizing radiation, was built based on multiple phantom measurements and used for teaching radiation safety. The validity of the simulator was confirmed in three catheterization laboratories and tested by 20 interventional cardiologists. All evaluators were tested by an objective knowledge examination before, immediately following, and 12 weeks after simulator-based learning and training. A subjective Likert questionnaire on satisfaction with simulation-based learning and training was also completed. The 20 evaluators learned and retained the knowledge that they gained from using the simulator: the average scores of the knowledge examination pre-simulator training was 54 ± 15% (mean ± standard deviation), and this score significantly increased after training to 94 ± 10% (p < 0.001). The evaluators also reported high levels of satisfaction following simulation-based learning and training according to the results of the subjective Likert questionnaire. Simulators can be used to train cardiology staff and fellows and to further educate experienced personnel on radiation safety. As a result of simulator training, the operator gains knowledge, which can then be applied in the catheterization laboratory in order to reduce radiation doses to the patient and to the operator, thereby improving the safety of the intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27817133What 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.