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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The effect of two cognitive aid designs on team functioning during intra‐operative anaphylaxis emergencies: a multi‐centre simulation study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Anaesthesia, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1111/anae.13332 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
S. D. Marshall, P. Sanderson, C. A. McIntosh, H. Kolawole |
| Abstract |
This multi-centre repeated measures study was undertaken to determine how contrasting designs of cognitive aids affect team performance during simulated intra-operative anaphylaxis crises. A total of 24 teams consisting of a consultant anaesthetist, an anaesthetic trainee and anaesthetic assistant managed three simulated intra-operative anaphylaxis emergencies. Each team was assigned at random to a counterbalanced order of: no cognitive aid; a linear cognitive aid; and a branched cognitive aid, and scored for team functioning. Scores were significantly higher with a linear compared with either a branched version of the cognitive aid or no cognitive aid for 'Team Overall Behavioural Performance', difference between study groups (F-value) 5.8, p = 0.01. Aggregate scores were higher with the linear compared with the branched aid design (p = 0.03). Cognitive aids improve co-ordination of the team's activities and support team members to verbalise their actions. A linear design of cognitive aid improves team functioning more than a branched design. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 101 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 Kingdom | 22 | 22% |
| Australia | 17 | 17% |
| United States | 15 | 15% |
| Canada | 4 | 4% |
| Comoros | 2 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 32 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 73 | 72% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 15 | 15% |
| Scientists | 10 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 78 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 23% |
| Unknown | 22 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 23 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 71. 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 06 February 2024.
All research outputs
#616,187
of 25,701,027 outputs
Outputs from Anaesthesia
#303
of 5,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,953
of 405,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anaesthesia
#4
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,701,027 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,154 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 405,159 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.