| Title |
Is motion analysis a valid tool for assessing laparoscopic skill?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-012-2631-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John D. Mason, James Ansell, Neil Warren, Jared Torkington |
| Abstract |
The use of simulation for laparoscopic training has led to the development of objective tools for skills assessment. Motion analysis represents one area of focus. This study was designed to assess the evidence for the use of motion analysis as a valid tool for laparoscopic skills assessment. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 2 | 1% |
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Slovenia | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Croatia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 161 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 29 | 17% |
| Researcher | 23 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 8% |
| Other | 38 | 22% |
| Unknown | 31 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 70 | 41% |
| Engineering | 32 | 19% |
| Psychology | 8 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 14 | 8% |
| Unknown | 38 | 22% |
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 21 August 2013.
All research outputs
#13,677,179
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#2,988
of 6,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,885
of 278,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#42
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,002 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 278,740 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.