| Title |
Preliminary evaluation of the pattern cutting and the ligating loop virtual laparoscopic trainers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-014-3764-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. Chellali, W. Ahn, G. Sankaranarayanan, J. T. Flinn, S. D. Schwaitzberg, D. B. Jones, Suvranu De, C. G. L. Cao |
| Abstract |
The Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) trainer is currently the standard for training and evaluating basic laparoscopic skills. However, its manual scoring system is time-consuming and subjective. The Virtual Basic Laparoscopic Skill Trainer (VBLaST(©)) is the virtual version of the FLS trainer which allows automatic and real time assessment of skill performance, as well as force feedback. In this study, the VBLaST(©) pattern cutting (VBLaST-PC(©)) and ligating loop (VBLaST-LL(©)) tasks were evaluated as part of a validation study. We hypothesized that performance would be similar on the FLS and VBLaST(©) trainers, and that subjects with more experience would perform better than those with less experience on both trainers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 76 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 12% |
| Researcher | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 21% |
| Unknown | 18 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 31% |
| Engineering | 13 | 17% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Psychology | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 13% |
| Unknown | 17 | 22% |
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 05 March 2015.
All research outputs
#17,749,774
of 22,793,427 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#4,372
of 6,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,064
of 236,514 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#113
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,793,427 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,031 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 236,514 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.