| Title |
Examining Pediatric Resuscitation Education Using Simulation and Scripted Debriefing: A Multicenter Randomized Trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JAMA Pediatrics, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.1389 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adam Cheng, Elizabeth A. Hunt, Aaron Donoghue, Kristen Nelson-McMillan, Akira Nishisaki, Judy LeFlore, Walter Eppich, Mike Moyer, Marisa Brett-Fleegler, Monica Kleinman, JoDee Anderson, Mark Adler, Matthew Braga, Susanne Kost, Glenn Stryjewski, Steve Min, John Podraza, Joseph Lopreiato, Melinda Fiedor Hamilton, Kimberly Stone, Jennifer Reid, Jeffrey Hopkins, Jennifer Manos, Jonathan Duff, Matthew Richard, Vinay M. Nadkarni, for the EXPRESS Investigators |
| Abstract |
Resuscitation training programs use simulation and debriefing as an educational modality with limited standardization of debriefing format and content. Our study attempted to address this issue by using a debriefing script to standardize debriefings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 236 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 228 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 31 | 13% |
| Other | 29 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 27 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 18 | 8% |
| Other | 69 | 29% |
| Unknown | 40 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 126 | 53% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 10% |
| Psychology | 13 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 12 | 5% |
| Unknown | 49 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 07 March 2015.
All research outputs
#2,760,045
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Pediatrics
#2,782
of 6,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,063
of 206,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Pediatrics
#25
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 6,703 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 79.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 206,480 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 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 52% of its contemporaries.