↓ Skip to main content

Conducting multicenter research in healthcare simulation: Lessons learned from the INSPIRE network

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Simulation, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#19 of 115)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

55 tweeters
1 Facebook page


11 Dimensions

Readers on

51 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.
Conducting multicenter research in healthcare simulation: Lessons learned from the INSPIRE network
Published in
Advances in Simulation, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41077-017-0039-0
Pubmed ID

Adam Cheng, David Kessler, Ralph Mackinnon, Todd P. Chang, Vinay M. Nadkarni, Elizabeth A. Hunt, Jordan Duval-Arnould, Yiqun Lin, Martin Pusic, Marc Auerbach


Simulation-based research has grown substantially over the past two decades; however, relatively few published simulation studies are multicenter in nature. Multicenter research confers many distinct advantages over single-center studies, including larger sample sizes for more generalizable findings, sharing resources amongst collaborative sites, and promoting networking. Well-executed multicenter studies are more likely to improve provider performance and/or have a positive impact on patient outcomes. In this manuscript, we offer a step-by-step guide to conducting multicenter, simulation-based research based upon our collective experience with the International Network for Simulation-based Pediatric Innovation, Research and Education (INSPIRE). Like multicenter clinical research, simulation-based multicenter research can be divided into four distinct phases. Each phase has specific differences when applied to simulation research: (1)Planning phase, to define the research question, systematically review the literature, identify outcome measures, and conduct pilot studies to ensure feasibility and estimate power; (2)Project Development phase, when the primary investigator identifies collaborators, develops the protocol and research operations manual, prepares grant applications, obtains ethical approval and executes subsite contracts, registers the study in a clinical trial registry, forms a manuscript oversight committee, and conducts feasibility testing and data validation at each site; (3)Study Execution phase, involving recruitment and enrollment of subjects, clear communication and decision-making, quality assurance measures and data abstraction, validation, and analysis; and (4)Dissemination phase, where the research team shares results via conference presentations, publications, traditional media, social media, and implements strategies for translating results to practice. With this manuscript, we provide a guide to conducting quantitative multicenter research with a focus on simulation-specific issues.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 22%
Student > Master 9 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Other 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 33%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 7 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 18 November 2019.
All research outputs
of 15,051,489 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Simulation
of 115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 260,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Simulation
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,051,489 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 260,505 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them