| Title |
Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd006575.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Myura Nagendran, Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Rajesh Aggarwal, Marilena Loizidou, Brian R Davidson |
| Abstract |
Standard surgical training has traditionally been one of apprenticeship, where the surgical trainee learns to perform surgery under the supervision of a trained surgeon. This is time-consuming, costly, and of variable effectiveness. Training using a virtual reality simulator is an option to supplement standard training. Virtual reality training improves the technical skills of surgical trainees such as decreased time for suturing and improved accuracy. The clinical impact of virtual reality training is not known. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 536 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Singapore | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 527 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 79 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 66 | 12% |
| Researcher | 56 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 55 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 39 | 7% |
| Other | 119 | 22% |
| Unknown | 122 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 210 | 39% |
| Computer Science | 34 | 6% |
| Engineering | 32 | 6% |
| Psychology | 22 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 4% |
| Other | 72 | 13% |
| Unknown | 145 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 72. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 May 2018.
All research outputs
#592,626
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,064
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,618
of 212,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#25
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 212,406 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.