↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
338 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
552 Mendeley
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.

Timeline
X Demographics

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 552 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 543 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 83 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 64 12%
Researcher 56 10%
Student > Bachelor 56 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 39 7%
Other 124 22%
Unknown 130 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 214 39%
Computer Science 35 6%
Engineering 32 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 4%
Psychology 21 4%
Other 76 14%
Unknown 153 28%
Attention Score in Context

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
#626,873
of 26,409,992 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,059
of 13,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,713
of 214,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#23
of 227 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,409,992 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 13,223 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 214,071 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 227 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.