| Title |
Surgical evaluation and knowledge transfer—methods of clinical research in surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, March 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00423-011-0775-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Markus K. Diener, Thomas Simon, Markus W. Büchler, Christoph M. Seiler |
| Abstract |
This article aims to outline the framework of surgical evaluation and knowledge transfer. Therefore, special design issues affecting surgical clinical research will be discussed. Moreover, principles and challenges of knowledge transfer from research into practice will be addressed. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 50 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 15% |
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 23% |
| Unknown | 14 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 38% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 20 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 January 2013.
All research outputs
#15,260,208
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
#633
of 1,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,558
of 108,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,117 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 108,395 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.