Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33178937›Full record

ArticleBJR open2019

Interventional radiology training: where will technology take us?

Meghavi Mashar, Andrew Nanapragasam, Philip Haslam

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Meghavi MasharOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Andrew NanapragasamKing's College Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Philip HaslamThe Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID33178937
PMCPMC7592432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.