↓ Skip to main content
What is this page? Embed badge

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 (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
131 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
224 Mendeley
Summary Twitter Dimensions citations
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
23728281
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.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 224 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 216 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 14%
Researcher 25 11%
Student > Postgraduate 24 11%
Other 23 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 10%
Other 65 29%
Unknown 34 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 114 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 13%
Social Sciences 13 6%
Psychology 6 3%
Computer Science 4 2%
Other 14 6%
Unknown 45 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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
#3,219,509
of 22,711,645 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgery
#2,239
of 8,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,716
of 194,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgery
#20
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,645 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 194,631 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.

This page is provided by Altmetric.