Table 2 Study characteristics in chronological order
From: Avoiding adverse events in interventional radiology – a systematic review on the instruments
Study | Country | Setting | Study type |
|---|---|---|---|
Morbi et al. (2012) [24] | United Kingdom | Clinical, vascular interventional radiology | Interventional study design, monocenter |
Fargen et al. (2013) [25] | USA | Clinical, neurointerventional procedures | Interventional study design, monocenter |
Lutjeboer et al. (2015) [26] | Netherlands | Clinical, elective IR procedures | Prospective, monocenter |
Cates et al. (2016) [19] | USA | Simulated angiography suite | Prospective, monocenter, blind, randomized |
Nawka et al. (2020) [20] | Germany | Simulated angiography suite | Prospective, monocenter |
Zaika et al. (2020) [21] | Canada | Workstation with haptic feedback simulator | Prospective, monocenter |
Ramjeeawon et al. (2020) [23] | United Kingdom | Simulated angiography suite | Prospective, monocenter |
Siewert et al. (2022) [27] | USA | Clinical | Retrospective, multicenter |
Zaika et al. (2023) [22] | Canada | Workstation with haptic feedback simulator | Prospective, monocenter |