↓ Skip to main content

A simple assessment tool for evaluation of cadaveric temporal bone dissection

Overview of attention for article published in The Laryngoscope, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
A simple assessment tool for evaluation of cadaveric temporal bone dissection
Published in
The Laryngoscope, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/lary.26578
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Objective metrics in skilled-based educational courses allow trainees and instructors to assess performance and monitor progress. The objective is to validate a concise, easy-to-use instrument for assessment of resident skill during a timed cadaveric temporal-bone (CTB) dissection. Retrospective analysis. An instrument was developed to assess resident performance on a yearly timed microdissection of CTB. Five neurotologists participated in the assessment. Each reviewer's score was compared to the score given by the senior neurotologist each year for every resident. Spearman's correlation analysis was then used to assess the reproducibility of the instrument in assessing resident performance. The ability of the instrument to distinguish among experienced and novice trainees and to demonstrate improvement with experience were also assessed. The instrument was created and used for 6 years. Thirty residents were assessed. Correlation of scores between the senior neurotologist and the other neurotologist together was very high (r = 0.883, P < 0.001). Three specific tasks distinguished novice from senior dissectors: posterior canal, opening the membranous labyrinth, and disruption of the ossicular chain. A new instrument for assessment of resident skill on CTB dissection is presented. The instrument is easy to use, and scores derived from it are consistent across reviewers. The new instrument distinguishes experienced trainees from novice trainees, is sensitive to individual experience, and has proved useful in providing trainees with objective performance measures. NA. Laryngoscope, 2017.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 14 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 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 29%
Student > Master 3 21%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 7%
Librarian 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 2 14%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 43%
Computer Science 3 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 14%
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 21 April 2017.
All research outputs
#21,971,537
of 24,514,423 outputs
Outputs from The Laryngoscope
#5,274
of 6,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#275,801
of 314,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Laryngoscope
#67
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,514,423 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,657 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 314,484 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.