| Title |
Laparoscopic surgical box model training for surgical trainees with limited prior laparoscopic experience
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd010478.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Myura Nagendran, Clare D Toon, Brian R Davidson |
| Abstract |
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 box model physical simulator is an option to supplement standard training. However, the value of this modality on trainees with limited prior laparoscopic experience is unknown. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 173 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 171 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 9% |
| Other | 28 | 16% |
| Unknown | 60 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 65 | 38% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 5% |
| Psychology | 6 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 15 | 9% |
| Unknown | 65 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 September 2014.
All research outputs
#16,292,673
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11,226
of 13,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,432
of 237,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#211
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 237,108 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.