↓ Skip to main content

Within-Team Debriefing Versus Instructor-Led Debriefing for Simulation-Based Education: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgery, May 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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 Mendeley
Title
Within-Team Debriefing Versus Instructor-Led Debriefing for Simulation-Based Education: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Published in
Annals of Surgery, May 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 16 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 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 2%
United States 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 121 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 15%
Other 18 14%
Student > Postgraduate 14 11%
Researcher 14 11%
Other 44 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 64%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 12%
Social Sciences 12 9%
Unspecified 7 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 10 8%

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 15 August 2017.
All research outputs
#922,149
of 11,614,551 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgery
#796
of 5,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,528
of 136,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgery
#11
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,614,551 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,546 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 136,359 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.