ArticleBJR open2019
Interventional radiology training: where will technology take us?
Article in BJR open, 2019. 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.
- Modulating CT Attenuation of Polyvinyl Alcohol Cryogels for Individualized Training Phantoms in Interventional Radiology: A Proof-of-Concept Study.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Current Landscape, Challenges, and Future Directions for Interventional Radiology in Palestine.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2025Article
- Endovascular embolization techniques in acute thoracic and abdominal bleedings can be technically reproduced and trained in a standardized simulation setting using SLA 3D printing: a 1-year single-center study.Insights into imaging · 2022Article
- How Can We Sustain the Training Quality of Radiologic Technology Students During COVID-19 Outbreaks: A Lesson from Vietnam.Advances in medical education and practice · 2022Article
- Postgraduate radiology education: what has Covid-19 changed?BJR open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interventional radiology is a relatively young specialty, and it is undergoing a period of considerable growth. The benefits of a minimally invasive approach are clear, with smaller incisions, less pain, and faster recovery times being the principal benefits compared to surgical alternatives. Trainees need to acquire the technical skills and the clinical acumen to accurately deliver targeted treatment and safely follow up patients after the procedure. The need to maintain an efficient interventional radiology service whilst also giving sufficient time for trainee education is a challenge. In order to compensate for this, novel technologies like virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), cadaveric simulation, and three-dimensional (3D) printing have been postulated as a means of supplementing training. In this article, we outline the main features of these innovative strategies and discuss the evidence base behind them. Benefits of these techniques beyond pure clinical training include the standardization of educational cases, access to training at any time, and less risk to patients. The main disadvantage is the large financial outlay required. Therefore, before widespread uptake can be recommended, further research is needed to confirm the educational benefit of these novel techniques, both in and of themselves and in comparison to existing clinical-based education.
Identifiers
What 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.