| Title |
Instrument Failures for the da Vinci Surgical System: a Food and Drug Administration MAUDE Database Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-012-2659-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Diana C. W. Friedman, Thomas S. Lendvay, Blake Hannaford |
| Abstract |
Our goal was to analyze reported instances of the da Vinci robotic surgical system instrument failures using the FDA's MAUDE (Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience) database. From these data we identified some root causes of failures as well as trends that may assist surgeons and users of the robotic technology. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 60 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 17 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 14 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 20 | 33% |
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 20 November 2013.
All research outputs
#14,158,070
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#3,235
of 6,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,376
of 278,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#50
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 278,890 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.