ReviewCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026
Simulation and Virtual Reality as Training Modalities in Interventional Radiology: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo synthesise and appraise the certainty of evidence on simulation- and virtual-reality-based training in interventional radiology. MATERIALS AND
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched to April 2026 following PRISMA 2020, under an a priori protocol registered with PROSPERO (CRD420261358144). Eligible studies evaluated simulation or virtual-reality training with objective outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using design-specific tools (RoB 2, ROBINS-I, the NIH before-after tool) and certainty with GRADE. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis; findings were synthesised narratively (SWiM), without pooling.
resultsEighteen studies (495 learners; seven randomised trials) were included; all reported improvement on at least one metric. Pre-post-reductions ranged from 50 to 72% (fluoroscopy time), 27 to 53% (procedure time), 28 to 76% (contrast volume), and 31 to 71% (radiation dose) (p < 0.001 to 0.05). In controlled trials, simulation improved technique (for example fewer catheters advanced without a guiding wire, 25% versus 82%, p = 0.01) and reduced contrast volume (28.0 versus 40.0 mL, p < 0.01), whereas procedure time was rarely significant. Transfer studies reported real-patient gains, including superior first-attempt cannulation (16 versus 12 of 16, p < 0.05) and a 30% radiation-dose reduction during real CT-guided procedures (p < 0.001). No randomised trial was at low risk of bias; GRADE certainty was low for radiation- and contrast-related outcomes and very low for procedure time and clinical transfer.
conclusionSimulation probably improves interventional-radiology technical performance, most clearly for radiation- and contrast-related outcomes, with low-certainty evidence of clinical transfer. Small samples, heterogeneity and probable publication bias limit the evidence; adequately powered multicentre trials reporting patient-level outcomes are needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2a (Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine).
Indexed as
Identifiers
42717110What 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.