| Title |
Visual spatial ability for surgical trainees: implications for learning endoscopic, laparoscopic surgery and other image-guided procedures
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-018-6094-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Patrick Henn, Anthony G. Gallagher, Emmeline Nugent, Neal E. Seymour, Randy S. Haluck, Hazem Hseino, Oscar Traynor, Paul C. Neary |
| Abstract |
In image-guided procedures, a high level of visual spatial ability may be an advantage for surgical trainees. We assessed the visual spatial ability of surgical trainees. Two hundred and thirty-nine surgical trainees and 61 controls were tested on visual spatial ability using 3 standardised tests, the Card Rotation, Cube Comparison and Map-Planning Tests. Two hundred and twenty-one, 236 and 236 surgical trainees and 61 controls completed the Card Rotation test, Cube Comparison test and Map-Planning test, respectively. Two percent of surgical trainees performed statistically significantly worse than their peers on card rotation and map-planning test, > 1% on Cube Comparison test. Surgical trainees performed statistically significantly better than controls on all tests. Two percent of surgical trainees performed statistically significantly worse than their peers on visual spatial ability. The implication of this finding is unclear, further research is required that can look at the learning and educational portfolios of these trainees who perform poorly on visual spatial ability, and ascertain if they are struggling to learn skills for image-guided procedures. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 13 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 37% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 6% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 13 | 37% |
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 03 April 2018.
All research outputs
#20,480,611
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#5,719
of 6,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#382,651
of 445,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#116
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,111 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 445,223 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.