Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32727309›Full record

ArticleInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2020

Impact and prevention of errors in endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms.

Johanna Maria Ospel, Nima Kashani, Arnuv Mayank, Petra Cimflova, Manraj Heran, Sachin Pandey, Lissa Peeling, Anil Gopinathan, Demetrius Lopes, Naci Kocer and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Johanna Maria OspelDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0029-6764
Nima KashaniDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Arnuv MayankDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Petra CimflovaDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Manraj HeranDepartment of Radiology, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, Canada.
Sachin PandeyDepartment of Radiology, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.
Lissa PeelingDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.
Anil GopinathanDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, National University Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8192-1287
Demetrius LopesBrain and Spine Institute, AdvocateAurora Health, Chicago, IL, USA.
Naci KocerDepartment of Radiology, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Mayank GoyalDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
University of Calgary · CAIstanbul University · TRNational University Hospital · SGUniversity of Saskatchewan · CAVancouver General Hospital · CAWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPreventing errors and complications in neurointervention is crucial, particularly in the treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs), where the natural history is generally benign, and the margin of treatment benefit small. We aimed to investigate how neurointerventionalists perceive the importance and frequency of errors and the resulting complications in endovascular UIA treatment, and which steps could be taken to prevent them.

methodsAn international multidisciplinary survey was conducted among neurointerventionalists. Participants provided their demographic characteristics and neurointerventional treatment volume. They were asked about their perceptions on the importance and frequency of different errors in endovascular UIA treatment, and which solutions they thought to be most effective in preventing these errors.

resultsTwo-hundred-thirty-three neurointerventionalists from 38 countries participated in the survey. Participants identified errors in technical execution as the most common source of complications in endovascular UIA treatment (40.4% thought these errors constituted a relatively or very large proportion of all complication sources), closely followed by errors in decision-making/indication (32.2%) and errors related to management of unexpected events (28.4%). Simulation training was thought to be most effective in reducing technical errors, while cognitive errors were believed to be best minimized by abandoning challenging procedures, more honest discussion of complications and better standardization of procedure steps.

conclusionNeurointerventionalists perceived both technical and cognitive errors to be important sources of complications in endovascular UIA treatment. Simulation training, a cultural change, higher acceptance of bail-out strategies and better standardization of procedures were perceived to be most effective in preventing these.

Indexed as

Simulation TrainingEndovascular ProceduresFemaleHumansIntracranial AneurysmMaleMedical ErrorsMiddle AgedPractice Patterns, Physicians'Surveys and QuestionnairesComplicationsintracranial aneurysmneurointerventionsimulation training

Identifiers

PMID32727309
PMCPMC7645194
OpenAlexW3046843578

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.