ArticleNeurosurgical review2024
Comment on - "Simulation training approaches in intracranial aneurysm surgery-a systematic review".
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2025-01-29Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the increasing complexity of intracranial aneurysm surgery and the reduced opportunities for hands-on training, there is a need for effective simulation-based training methods. This systematic review examines 26 studies on various simulation training approaches for intracranial aneurysm clipping, including ex vivo methods, virtual reality platforms, and 3D-printed models. The review evaluates these methods based on their effectiveness, realism, usability, and validation, highlighting that current simulation models are heterogeneous and lack standardization. Most existing simulations fail to replicate the complete microsurgical workflow, and their validation methods vary widely, limiting generalizability. The review recommends developing a standardized, comprehensive, and cost-effective simulation model that incorporates advanced haptic feedback and detailed anatomical features. Future research should focus on creating a universal validation framework to reliably assess simulation efficacy and ensure that neurosurgical trainees receive consistent, high-quality training experiences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39394495What 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.