ReviewJournal of contemporary brachytherapy2023
The role of training simulators in interventional radiation therapy (brachytherapy) training: A narrative review.
Review in Journal of contemporary brachytherapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utilization of extended-reality technologies in the field of medical radiation.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Review
- Global trends in the value of simulation as a pedagogical tool in oncology: a bibliometric analysis from 2010 to 2024.Medical education online · 2025Review
- Initial needle tracking with the first standalone combined infrared camera - CT system for brachytherapy-analysis of tracking accuracy and uncertainties.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2025Article
- Augmented reality in brachytherapy: A narrative review.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Simulators have revolutionized medical education and training across various disciplines, offering unique advantages in skill acquisition and performance improvement. In the context of interventional radiation therapy (IRT), simulators have emerged as valuable tools for training healthcare professionals in these complex procedures. This narrative review summarized the available evidence on the use of simulators in IRT training, highlighting their impact on proficiency, engagement, and self-confidence as well as their benefits for medical physicists and radiation therapists. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, resulting in inclusion of 10 papers published since 2009, with 5 of them published since 2020. Publications originated from centers in USA, Ireland, Switzerland, Canada, and Japan, covering a range of IRT settings, including general, prostate, and cervical IRT. The review demonstrated that simulators provide a controlled and realistic environment for skill acquisition, allowing healthcare professionals to practice procedures, optimize image quality, and enhance technical proficiency. The use of simulators addressed the barriers associated with limited caseload and procedural complexity, ultimately contributing to improved education and IRT training. While cost considerations may exist, simulators offer long-term cost-effective solutions, balancing the potential benefits in improving educational outcomes and patient care. Overall, simulators play a crucial role in IRT training, enhancing the skills and competence of healthcare providers and improving access to quality IRT care worldwide. Future research should focus on evaluating the long-term impact of simulation-based training on clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction, exploring different simulation models and training approaches, and addressing region-specific barriers to optimize the utilization of IRT.
Indexed as
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.