↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
At most hospitals in the state of Iowa, most surgeons' daily lists of elective cases include only 1 or 2 cases: Individual surgeons' percentage operating room utilization is a consistently unreliable metric
Published in
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, August 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinane.2017.08.016
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Percentage utilization of operating room (OR) time is not an appropriate endpoint for planning additional OR time for surgeons with high caseloads, and cannot be measured accurately for surgeons with low caseloads. Nonetheless, many OR directors claim that their hospitals make decisions based on individual surgeons' OR utilizations. This incongruity could be explained by the OR managers considering the earlier mathematical studies, performed using data from a few large teaching hospitals, as irrelevant to their hospitals. The important mathematical parameter for the prior observations is the percentage of surgeon lists of elective cases that include 1 or 2 cases; "list" meaning a combination of surgeon, hospital, and date. We measure the incidence among many hospitals. Observational cohort study. 117 hospitals in Iowa from July 2013 through September 2015. Surgeons with same identifier among hospitals. Surgeon lists of cases including at least one outpatient surgical case, so that Relative Value Units (RVU's) could be measured. Averaging among hospitals in Iowa, more than half of the surgeons' lists included 1 or 2 cases (77%; P<0.00001 vs. 50%). Approximately half had 1 case (54%; P=0.0012 vs. 50%). These percentages exceeded 50% even though nearly all the surgeons operated at just 1 hospital on days with at least 1 case (97.74%; P<0.00001 vs. 50%). The cases were not of long durations; among the 82,928 lists with 1 case, the median was 6 intraoperative RVUs (e.g., adult inguinal herniorrhaphy). Accurate confidence intervals for raw or adjusted utilizations are so wide for individual surgeons that decisions based on utilization are equivalent to decisions based on random error. The implication of the current study is generalizability of that finding from the largest teaching hospital in the state to the other hospitals in the state.

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 29 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 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Librarian 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 17 59%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 10%
Linguistics 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 17 59%
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 28 August 2017.
All research outputs
#16,725,651
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Anesthesia
#948
of 1,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,090
of 323,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Anesthesia
#17
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,861 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 323,804 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.