Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Comparison of video-based and presentation-based self-directed instruction for learning basic neuroangiography.
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. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital tools and simulation-based learning are playing an increasingly important role in medical education. Earlier studies have shown that video and virtual reality can be just as effective for teaching clinical skills as presentation-based teaching methods. This exploratory study compared two standardized self-directed instructional formats, video-based and presentation-based instruction, for teaching basic neuroangiographic skills. In addition to comparing objective and subjective learning outcomes between instructional formats, the study explored whether prior angiography experience influenced performance and moderated the effect of the teaching method.
methodsTwenty participants with different levels of prior angiography experience were randomly assigned to either a video-based group (VG; n = 9) or a presentation-based group (PG; n = 11). The VG watched expert-narrated recordings of a physician performing neuroangiography on a silicone flow model. The PG independently worked through static simplified slides derived from the same instructional material, including schematic illustrations and brief written annotations. Afterwards, all participants performed neuroangiography on the silicone flow model using three different catheter types (Vertebralis, Simmons 2, Headhunter). Overall performance was assessed using objective criteria (e.g., total and fluoroscopy time) and self-reported data based on learning and confidence.
resultsFor the Vertebralis catheter, those in the presentation group used significantly less fluoroscopy time, with the PG using 237.00 s on average, while the VG needed 369.00 s (p = 0.031). Nevertheless, participants rated the video method as significantly more helpful overall (p = 0.022). Moreover, for inexperienced participants video-based training led to more successful catheterization of the left vertebral artery (p = 0.048) and fewer path deviations (p = 0.048) when compared to the presentation-based approach.
conclusionsVideo-based instruction may be a valuable adjunct to early neuroangiography training, especially for beginners. While it was associated with longer fluoroscopy times, participants perceived it as more helpful and showed improvements in certain procedural aspects. These findings highlight the potential benefits of integrating video-based elements into a blended learning curriculum for neuroangiography, and suggest that further optimization of instructional design is needed in medical education.
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.