↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Laparoscopic surgical box model training for surgical trainees with limited prior laparoscopic experience

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 Mendeley
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

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 169 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 167 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 11%
Student > Master 18 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 9%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Other 28 17%
Unknown 56 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 38%
Social Sciences 10 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 4%
Psychology 6 4%
Computer Science 4 2%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 62 37%
Attention Score in Context

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
#16,050,290
of 25,383,225 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11,087
of 12,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,664
of 231,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#209
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,383,225 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 12,941 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.0. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 231,302 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 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.