Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Simulation training for invasive cardiovascular procedures: the Heart-SIMS-1 randomized trial.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06224101 (Heart-SIMS1), which is not on this 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.
Heart-SIMS1: Simulation Training For Invasive Cardiovascular Procedures
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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundsInterventional cardiology training has a long learning curve, with potential procedural risks to patients and clinicians. We aimed to assess whether mentored simulation-based training with 3D-printed models can improve the skills of beginners in coronary diagnostic procedures in a pilot randomized trial.
methodsTwenty-nine final-year medical students recruited from a single University were lectured on the fundamentals of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) for one-hour, and then randomized to conventional or simulation training. Conventional training (n = 15) consisted of watching a 20-minute video demonstrating ICA steps performed in a 3D-printed coronary simulator. The simulation training group (n = 14) were offered, in pairs, the same content in a 20-minute hands-on session using a 3D-printed simulator. The co-primary endpoint was efficacy and safety of performing a simulated ICA in the angiography suite. Efficacy and safety were graded using a 13-point procedural checklist (0-100%) and the identification of five procedural “red flags” items, respectively. The secondary endpoint was theoretical knowledge (multiple-choice test).
resultsAll participants completed the protocol. In both components of the co-primary endpoint, the simulation group scored higher: efficacy score of 91.5 ± 3.8% vs. 64.6 ± 8.3% (mean difference 95% CI [20.8, 30.8]) and safety score 100.0% (100.0-100.0%) vs. 62.5 (20.8–79.2%) (median difference 95% CI [20.8, 79.2]), p < 0.001. The median number of “red flags” were 2 (1–4) in conventional and 0 (0–0) in simulation training (p < 0.001). Also, simulation group obtained a higher score in the theoretical knowledge test: 85.7 ± 9.0% vs. 76.8 ± 12.7%, p = 0.039.
conclusionMentored simulation-based training using 3D-printed simulators significantly improved theoretical knowledge and basic procedural skills of ICA. These results suggest that simulation-based training should be pursued for improving patient safety and technical proficiency.
trial registrationNCT06224101.
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.