↓ Skip to main content

What to consider when designing a laparoscopic colorectal training curriculum: a review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in Techniques in Coloproctology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
26 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
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.
Title
What to consider when designing a laparoscopic colorectal training curriculum: a review of the literature
Published in
Techniques in Coloproctology, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10151-018-1760-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. Gaitanidis, C. Simopoulos, M. Pitiakoudis

Abstract

Multiple studies have demonstrated the benefits of laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS), but in several countries it has still not been widely adopted. LCS training is associated with several challenges, such as patient safety concerns and a steep learning curve. Current evidence may facilitate designing of efficient training curricula to overcome these challenges. Basic training with virtual reality simulators has witnessed meteoric advances and may be essential during the early parts of the learning curve. Cadaveric and animal model training still constitutes an indispensable training tool, due to a higher degree of difficulty and greater resemblance to real operative conditions. In addition, recent evidence favors the use of novel training paradigms, such as proficiency-based training, case selection and modular training. This review summarizes the recent advances in LCS training and provides the evidence for designing an efficient training curriculum to overcome the challenges of LCS training.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 32 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Engineering 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 38 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 14 May 2018.
All research outputs
#2,480,694
of 24,615,420 outputs
Outputs from Techniques in Coloproctology
#259
of 1,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,934
of 336,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Techniques in Coloproctology
#14
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,615,420 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,333 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 336,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.