ArticleNeurology international2026
Simulator Training on Neurointerventional Skill Acquisition in Novices: A Pilot Study.
Article in Neurology international, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSimulation-based training may offer a useful approach to support skill acquisition in neurointerventional stroke treatment without exposing patients to procedural risks. As the global demand for thrombectomy rises, training strategies that ensure procedural competence while addressing workforce constraints are increasingly important. With this pilot study, we aim to generate a hypothesis as to whether additional exposure of trainees to mechanical thrombectomy could benefit from simulator training on top of the standard training carried out on flow models. This study was designed as an exploratory pilot investigation and was not able to provide inferential or confirmatory statistical conclusions.
methodsSix novice participants (advanced clinical-year medical students with completed anatomical and preclinical training, but without previous exposure to catheter-based interventions) performed two neurointerventional tasks, vascular access and mechanical thrombectomy (MTE), on flow models. After a baseline assessment, three participants received standard model-based training (control group), and three received additional simulator training using a high-fidelity angiography simulator (Mentice VIST G5). Performance was reassessed after four weeks using technical and clinical surrogate metrics, which were ranked and descriptively analyzed.
resultsNo relevant differences were observed between groups for the vascular access task. In contrast, the simulator group demonstrated a trend toward improved performance in the MTE task, with greater gains in efficiency, autonomy, and procedural safety.
conclusionsOur findings indicate a possible benefit of even brief simulator exposure for skill acquisition for complex endovascular procedures such as MTE. While conventional training may suffice for basic skills, simulation may be particularly helpful in supporting learning in more advanced tasks.
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.