↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Virtual reality simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
132 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
179 Mendeley
Title
Virtual reality simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008237.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catharine M Walsh, Mary E Sherlock, Simon C Ling, Heather Carnahan

Abstract

Traditionally, training in gastrointestinal endoscopy has been based upon an apprenticeship model, with novice endoscopists learning basic skills under the supervision of experienced preceptors in the clinical setting. Over the last two decades, however, the growing awareness of the need for patient safety has brought the issue of simulation-based training to the forefront. While the use of simulation-based training may have important educational and societal advantages, the effectiveness of virtual reality gastrointestinal endoscopy simulators has yet to be clearly demonstrated.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 179 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Sweden 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 172 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 15%
Researcher 21 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Other 15 8%
Other 46 26%
Unknown 36 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 82 46%
Social Sciences 14 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 7%
Engineering 9 5%
Psychology 8 4%
Other 14 8%
Unknown 39 22%
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 16 August 2012.
All research outputs
#16,106,935
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,216
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,767
of 181,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#139
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 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 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 is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 181,239 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 173 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.