Systematic review demonstrates that simulation and virtual reality improve technical performance in interventional radiology trainees, suggesting reduced radiation exposure and contrast use.
Purpose To synthesise and appraise the certainty of evidence on simulation- and virtual-reality-based training in interventional radiology. Materials and Methods MEDLINE, 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. Results Eighteen 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. Conclusion Simulation 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).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Deshwal et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: