↓ Skip to main content

Within-Team Debriefing Versus Instructor-Led Debriefing for Simulation-Based Education

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgery, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 Mendeley
Title
Within-Team Debriefing Versus Instructor-Led Debriefing for Simulation-Based Education
Published in
Annals of Surgery, July 2013
DOI 10.1097/sla.0b013e31829659e4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sylvain Boet, M. Dylan Bould, Bharat Sharma, Scott Revees, Viren N. Naik, Emmanuel Triby, Teodor Grantcharov

Abstract

To compare the effectiveness of an interprofessional within-team debriefing with that of an instructor-led debriefing on team performance during a simulated crisis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 148 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 15%
Student > Postgraduate 20 13%
Other 20 13%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 12%
Other 49 31%
Unknown 7 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 92 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 12%
Social Sciences 12 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 15 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 15 August 2017.
All research outputs
#1,324,220
of 13,181,559 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgery
#1,069
of 5,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,884
of 150,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgery
#16
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,181,559 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 5,970 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 150,199 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 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.