ArticleBrain & spine2026
Validation of simulator-based neuroangiographical training.
Article in Brain & spine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Angiography is a diagnostic and interventional technique in (endo)vascular neurosurgery that demands a high level of precision and technical expertise. Traditionally, mastery of angiographic techniques has relied on hands-on training, often limited by patient availability and procedural complexity. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of simulator-based training for angiography, determining its role in enhancing procedural proficiency and its potential integration into a neuroendovascular training curriculum. Research question: Is a simulator-based training for neuroangiography effective ? Materials and methods: Participants (22 trainees and 10 experts) were recruited in neurosurgical departments from four international university hospitals. After a familiarization session, each participant performed 6 attempts of diagnostic angiography and 3 attempts of coiling on an Angio mentor endovascular simulator. Data gathered were procedure time, fluoroscopy time, amount of contrast injected, number of roadmap sequences and number of errors. The learning curve was studied and contrasting group assessment was performed. Results: There was a clear steep improvement for all parameters in the learning curve which flattens out as the trainees master angiography and coiling. Trainees had a notable reduction in procedure time, approaching the experts' levels after sixth and seventh attempt of diagnostic angiography. The contrasting group assessment demonstrated discriminating results of experts compared to trainees and a distinctly increasing overlap between trainees and experts with increasing number of attempts. Discussion and conclusions: Endovascular simulators enable skill acquisition in a controlled environment, enhancing technical proficiency in neuroendovascular coiling and angiography, and should play a role in neuroendovascular training.
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.