Evidence Map

Comprehensive evidence quality assessment across the 6P domains

Evidence Quality Map

GRADE methodology assessment across all 6P domains

Evidence Base Summary

Systematic review of 142 high-quality studies

142

High-Quality Studies

15

International Experts

6

Evidence Domains

People Domain Evidence

Staff qualifications and competency requirements

Evidence Quality

High Quality Evidence

Based on 28 studies with strong methodology

Key Findings

  • Fellowship training improves outcomes
  • Volume-outcome relationships established
  • Team training reduces complications

Place Domain Evidence

Infrastructure and equipment requirements

Evidence Quality

Very High Quality Evidence

Based on 35 studies with excellent methodology

Key Findings

  • Advanced imaging improves outcomes
  • Dedicated suites reduce complications
  • Equipment quality affects success rates

Products Domain Evidence

Device inventory and supply management

Evidence Quality

Moderate Quality Evidence

Based on 22 studies with good methodology

Key Findings

  • Device availability affects outcomes
  • Quality control reduces failures
  • Inventory management improves efficiency

Protocols Domain Evidence

Standardized clinical workflows

Evidence Quality

High Quality Evidence

Based on 31 studies with strong methodology

Key Findings

  • Standardized protocols improve outcomes
  • Emergency activation reduces delays
  • Quality assurance prevents errors

Performance Domain Evidence

Quality metrics and outcome monitoring

Evidence Quality

Very High Quality Evidence

Based on 26 studies with excellent methodology

Key Findings

  • Volume thresholds improve outcomes
  • Quality monitoring reduces complications
  • Time metrics correlate with success

Protection Domain Evidence

Safety protocols and risk management

Evidence Quality

High Quality Evidence

Based on 24 studies with strong methodology

Key Findings

  • Radiation safety reduces exposure
  • Safety protocols prevent incidents
  • Risk management improves outcomes

GRADE Methodology

Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation

Evidence Quality Levels

Very High Quality

Very confident in effect estimate

High Quality

Confident in effect estimate

Moderate Quality

Moderately confident in effect estimate

Low Quality

Limited confidence in effect estimate

Assessment Criteria

Study Design

Randomized controlled trials, observational studies, expert consensus

Risk of Bias

Assessment of methodological quality and potential biases

Consistency

Similarity of results across different studies

Directness

Applicability to the target population and outcomes

Precision

Confidence intervals and sample sizes

Evidence-Based Certification

Built on the strongest available evidence for neurointerventional laboratory standards

Start Application Review Framework