ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2024
Remote feedback in endovascular simulation training: a mixed-methods study.
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Simulator Training on Neurointerventional Skill Acquisition in Novices: A Pilot Study.Neurology international · 2026Article
- A Delphi-based needs assessment to identify and prioritise procedural skills through consensus for simulation-based learning in neurosurgery.BMC medical education · 2025Article
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
backgroundThere is an increasing need to increase simulation-based learning opportunities for vascular surgery residents in endovascular skills training. This study aims to explore the effectiveness of remote expert instructional feedback of endovascular simulation-based education, as a means of increasing training opportunities in this area for vascular surgery residents.
methodsA mixed-methods study design was adopted. Twelve vascular surgery residents from Ireland were tasked with completing two endovascular renal artery procedures: one with in-person expert feedback and the other with remote instruction. Participants ranged in experience levels from second year to final year of residency. Following the training activities, interviews and a questionnaire were employed to gather information on the usefulness of remote feedback.
resultsThere was no significant difference reported by participants using a post-event validated questionnaire between remote and in-person feedback. During the interviews, participants expressed mixed feelings about the presence of the educator while practicing, but they eventually saw no limiting factors to their practice when the trainer provided remote feedback. When receiving performance feedback remotely, clear communication and a shared knowledge of the task development are critical to success.
conclusionsWe believe these findings can inform the design and development of remote learning and assessment of endovascular skills training and ultimately provide increased opportunities for more skills practice for vascular surgical residents.
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.