↓ Skip to main content

Percepção dos médicos sobre a formação adquirida durante a especialização em Nefrologia no Peru

Overview of attention for article published in Jornal Brasileiro de Nefrologia, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Percepção dos médicos sobre a formação adquirida durante a especialização em Nefrologia no Peru
Published in
Jornal Brasileiro de Nefrologia, January 2015
DOI 10.5935/0101-2800.20150053
Pubmed ID
Authors

Percy Herrera-Añazco, Luis Bonilla-Vargas, Adrian V. Hernandez, Manuela Silveira-Chau

Abstract

In Peru there are different hospitals and university programs for training of specialists in nephrology. To assess the perception of physicians who attend such programs. We carried out a descriptive cross-sectional national-level study in physicians who were in the last two years of nephrology training during February 2012 and who had graduated from it in 2010 and 2011. A self-applied questionnaire was developed along with the Peruvian Society of Nephrology based on international standards. The questionnaire evaluated: mentoring, clinical training, procedures, external rotations, research and global perception. Forty doctors were surveyed nationwide. 82.5% had tutors, 22.5% of them said their support was poor. A 27.5% described their theoretical formation as deficient. The practical training was perceived as acceptable globally; however, improvements in training on peritoneal dialysis and reading kidney transplant biopsies are necessary. A 90% have national external rotations and 65% reported to have an international rotation. In the assessment of research, 77.5% thought this is deficient. In addition, 82.5% believed that residency should last four years. However, 60% reported that their residency training was good. There is a decrease in the positive perception of the aspects studied among residents regarding graduates. The overall perception of nephrology residency training was considered good; however, areas of tutoring, and academic and research activities on average were deficient.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 9 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 3 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 17%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Environmental Science 1 6%
Unknown 9 50%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 September 2020.
All research outputs
#20,674,485
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Jornal Brasileiro de Nefrologia
#268
of 366 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266,795
of 359,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Jornal Brasileiro de Nefrologia
#15
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 366 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 359,691 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.