↓ Skip to main content

Nurse-led versus doctor-led preoperative assessment for elective surgical patients requiring regional or general anaesthesia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 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 (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
208 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.
Title
Nurse-led versus doctor-led preoperative assessment for elective surgical patients requiring regional or general anaesthesia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010160.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda Nicholson, Chris H Coldwell, Sharon R Lewis, Andrew F Smith

Abstract

The organization of elective surgical services has changed in recent years, with increasing use of day surgery, reduced hospital stay and preoperative assessment (POA) performed in an outpatient clinic rather than by a doctor in a hospital ward after admission. Nurse specialists often lead these clinic-based POA services and have responsibility for assessing a patient's fitness for anaesthesia and surgery and organizing any necessary investigations or referrals. These changes offer many potential benefits for patients, but it is important to demonstrate that standards of patient care are maintained as nurses take on these responsibilities.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 208 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Canada 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 200 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 16%
Researcher 28 13%
Student > Bachelor 26 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 8%
Student > Postgraduate 13 6%
Other 55 26%
Unknown 36 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 19%
Social Sciences 9 4%
Psychology 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 21 10%
Unknown 51 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 17 August 2020.
All research outputs
#2,633,945
of 16,968,502 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,267
of 11,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,509
of 193,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#57
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,968,502 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 193,501 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 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 50% of its contemporaries.