ArticleThe British journal of radiology2024
A national survey of interventional radiology trainees on peripheral and aortic endovascular training.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe development of technical skills in peripheral and aortic endovascular intervention is an essential part of interventional radiology (IR) training. Access to endovascular training remains contentious, with IR and vascular surgery (VS) trainees competing for opportunities. The Collaborative Peripheral and Aortic Endovascular Training Survey (CPAETS) aimed to evaluate IR trainees' experiences, expectations, and barriers to endovascular training.
methodsCPAETS was a joint survey between the British Society of Interventional Radiology and the Rouleaux Club (UK Vascular Trainees' Association), open for 12 weeks and distributed to UK-based IR and VS trainees. This article focuses on IR trainee responses.
resultsThirty-two responses were received from IR trainees across England, Scotland, and Wales. Overall, 59% of respondents were satisfied with their endovascular training. IR trainees reported less regular hands-on experience of aortic endovascular procedures (50%) compared to peripheral endovascular procedures (93%). Consequently fewer trainees (65%) felt confident in achieving the necessary aortic endovascular competencies by the end of their training, compared to peripheral procedures (89%).
conclusionLimited exposure to aortic endovascular procedures resulted in reduced confidence levels in performing aortic intervention as compared to peripheral procedures. Potential solutions to bridge some of these IR training gaps include greater pre-operative and post-operative presence, the use of simulators, and IR fellowships to ensure adequate training opportunities. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This article provides a snapshot of the current gaps in IR endovascular training in the United Kingdom, with insight into solutions that can enable trainees to develop clinical and technical competencies required for IR consultant practice.
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.