English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

To the Editor:We read with concern the paper by Flodmark et al1 entitled “Training of future Interventional Neuroradiologists, the European Approach.” The authors have produced a training charter for interventional neuroradiology (INR) based on assumptions of a training deficit, an insufficiency of INR recruits and widespread representation and approval from other medical speciality stakeholders. Unfortunately, these assumptions are seriously flawed.The assertion that “Training in INR has been a matter between trainee and teacher and thus the result has often been less than suboptimal training with a long learning curve, with patients paying a high price” is an affront to the many excellent training programmes in INR throughout Europe, which produce highly skilled and competent INRs. This statement by the authors is anecdotal and without evidence.The authors’ assumption that there is an insufficiency of INR recruits is not supported by evidence. In fact, there is no mapping of the numbers or distribution of INRs throughout Europe. For a training charter of this kind, mapping of the proposed deficiency of INRs is extremely important and a glaring omission …

Letter by Lee et al Regarding Article, “Training of Future Interventional Neuroradiologists: The European Approach”