↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
53 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.
Article details
Title
Rescheduling of Previously Cancelled Surgical Cases Does Not Increase Variability in Operating Room Workload When Cases Are Scheduled Based on Maximizing Efficiency of Use of Operating Room Time
Published in
Anesthesia and analgesia, September 2013
DOI 10.1213/ane.0b013e3182a0d9f6
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Conceptually, cancelling a case close to the scheduled day of surgery increases variability in operating room (OR) workload (i.e., total hours of scheduled cases plus turnovers), creating managerial problems. However, in our recent study of an OR scheduling office, cancellations (slightly) reduced variability in workload among days. If a relatively low incidence of cancellations does not cause increased variability in workload, this would be a useful finding when focusing strategic OR management initiatives. However, the previous study considered only the effect on the schedule for the day the cancelled case originally was scheduled to be performed, not the future date on which the case was performed.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 26%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Lecturer 3 6%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 38%
Engineering 7 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 15 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 October 2013.
All research outputs
#24,091,317
of 34,364,397 outputs
Outputs from Anesthesia and analgesia
#8,648
of 10,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,817
of 243,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anesthesia and analgesia
#21
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,364,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,894 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 243,022 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.