| Title |
Educational Impact of Trainee-Facilitated Head and Neck Radiology–Pathology Correlation Conferences
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Head and Neck Pathology, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12105-018-0929-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniel Thomas Ginat, Nicole A. Cipriani, Gregory Christoforidis |
| Abstract |
The goal of this study was to evaluate the benefits of resident and fellow-facilitated radiology-pathology head and neck conferences. A total of seven resident-facilitated and six fellow-facilitated head and neck radiology-pathology cases were presented as part of the radiology department conference series. The radiology residents were surveyed regarding the perceived quality and effectiveness of the fellow-facilitated sessions. The number of publications yielded from all the cases presented was tracked. Overall, the residents assessed the quality of the fellow-facilitated conferences with an average score of 3.9 out of 5 and the overall helpfulness with an average of 3.5 out of 5. The overall average level of resident understanding among the residents for the topics presented to them by the fellows at baseline was 2.5 out of 5 and 3.4 out of 5 after the presentations, which was a significant increase (p-value < 0.01). There were three peer-reviewed publications generated from the resident presentations and four peer-reviewed publications generated from the fellow presentations, which represents a 54% publication rate collectively. Therefore, trainee-facilitated head and neck radiology-pathology conferences at our institution provide added learning and scholarly activity opportunities. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 38% |
| Turkey | 2 | 25% |
| India | 1 | 13% |
| Spain | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 1 | 13% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 2 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 10% |
| Professor | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 60% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 40% |
| Psychology | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 18 October 2018.
All research outputs
#7,151,813
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Head and Neck Pathology
#619
of 1,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,850
of 342,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Head and Neck Pathology
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,007 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 342,434 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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.