Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28972807›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2017

The future of interventional and neurointerventional radiology: learning lessons from the past.

Julian Maingard, Hong Kuan Kok, Dinesh Ranatunga, Duncan Mark Brooks, Ronil V Chandra, Michael J Lee, Hamed Asadi

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. CIRSE Clinical Practice Manual.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Julian Maingard1 Interventional Radiology Service-Department of Radiologyz, Austin Hospital , Melbourne, VIC , Australia.
Hong Kuan Kok4 Department of Interventional Radiologyz, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust , London , UK.
Dinesh Ranatunga1 Interventional Radiology Service-Department of Radiologyz, Austin Hospital , Melbourne, VIC , Australia.
Duncan Mark Brooks1 Interventional Radiology Service-Department of Radiologyz, Austin Hospital , Melbourne, VIC , Australia.
Ronil V Chandra6 Department of Imagingz, Monash University , Melbourne, VIC , Australia.
Michael J Lee8 Interventional Radiology Service-Department of Radiologyz, Beaumont Hospital , Dublin , Ireland.
Hamed Asadi1 Interventional Radiology Service-Department of Radiologyz, Austin Hospital , Melbourne, VIC , Australia.
Austin Hospital · AUBeaumont Hospital · IEDeakin University · AUGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBMonash Health · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid progression of medical imaging technology and the ability to leverage knowledge from non-invasive imaging means that Interventional Radiologists (IRs) and Interventional Neuroradiologists are optimally placed to incorporate minimally invasive interventional paradigms into clinical management to advance patient care. There is ample opportunity to radically change the management options for patients with a variety of diseases through the use of minimally invasive interventional procedures. However, this will need to be accompanied by an increased clinical role of IRs to become active partners in the clinical management of patients. Unfortunately, the development of IR clinical presence has lagged behind and is reflected by declining rates of IR involvement in certain areas of practice such as vascular interventions. Current and future IRs must be willing to take on clinical responsibilities; reviewing patients in clinic to determine suitability for a procedure and potential contraindications, rounding on hospital inpatients and be willing to manage procedure related complications, which are all important parts of a successful IR practice. Increasing our clinical presence has several advantages over the procedure-driven model including enhanced patient knowledge and informed consent for IR procedures, improved rapport with patients and other clinical colleagues through active participation and engagement in patient care, visibility as a means to facilitate referrals and consistency of follow-up with opportunities for further learning. Many of the solutions to these problems are already in progress and the use of IR as a "hired gun" or "technician" is a concept that should be relegated to the past, and replaced with recognition of IRs as clinicians and partners in delivering modern high quality multidisciplinary team-based patient care. The following article will review the history of IR, the challenges facing this rapidly evolving profession and discuss recent developments occurring globally that are essential in maintaining expertise, securing future growth and improving patient outcomes in the modern multidisciplinary practice of medicine.

Indexed as

HumansNeuroimagingRadiology, Interventional

Identifiers

PMID28972807
PMCPMC6047642
OpenAlexW2763746822

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.