You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Application of the Six Sigma concept for quality assessment of different strategies in DBS surgery†
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal for Quality in Health Care, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1093/intqhc/mzy129 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Witold H Polanski, K Daniel Martin, Swen Günther, Gabriele Schackert, Lisa Klingelhoefer, Mareike Fauser, Alexander Storch, Stephan B Sobottka |
| Abstract |
For quality analysis, we applied the Six Sigma concept to define quality indicators and their boundaries as well as to compare treatment-dependent outcome data of deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). The Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) III with on medication and on stimulation, the reduction of daily levodopa equivalence doses (LED), and the stimulation amplitude 1 year after surgery were registered. Regarding the results of the EARLYSTIM study, sigma values for applicable studies were calculated and compared. Further, the impact of perioperative conditions on patients' outcomes was analyzed. Forty-one studies with 2184 patients were included. The bleeding risk was 1.36%. In median, UPDRS III on/on improved by 19.9% while the LED was reduced by 45.2%. The median stimulation amplitude was 2.84 V. With the Six Sigma principle, a comparison between different centers was possible. Microelectrode recordings (MER) did not correlate with occurrence of bleedings and did not impact patient outcome. The Six Sigma principle can be simply used to analyze, improve and compare complex medical processes, particularly, the DBS surgery. Based on these data, higher sigma values were reached for clinical improvement in UPDRS III on/on for patients who underwent surgery in local anesthesia with intraoperative test stimulation compared to surgery in general anesthesia. However, the difference was not statistically significant. Application of MER was found to be optional with no increased bleeding risk and no improvement on patient's outcome. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 20% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 16 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Engineering | 3 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 17 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 19 June 2018.
All research outputs
#5,829,019
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Quality in Health Care
#564
of 1,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,072
of 328,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Quality in Health Care
#30
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,534 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
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 328,114 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.