↓ Skip to main content

Debriefing for technology-enhanced simulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Education, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
40 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
137 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
236 Mendeley
Title
Debriefing for technology-enhanced simulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Medical Education, June 2014
DOI 10.1111/medu.12432
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam Cheng, Walter Eppich, Vincent Grant, Jonathan Sherbino, Benjamin Zendejas, David A Cook

Abstract

Debriefing is a common feature of technology-enhanced simulation (TES) education. However, evidence for its effectiveness remains unclear. We sought to characterise how debriefing is reported in the TES literature, identify debriefing features that are associated with improved outcomes, and evaluate the effectiveness of debriefing when combined with TES.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 236 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 3 1%
United States 2 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 225 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 19%
Researcher 27 11%
Other 26 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 22 9%
Other 93 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 122 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 15%
Social Sciences 24 10%
Unspecified 21 9%
Psychology 16 7%
Other 18 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 19 December 2017.
All research outputs
#524,521
of 12,350,698 outputs
Outputs from Medical Education
#112
of 1,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,418
of 197,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Education
#1
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,350,698 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,860 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 197,271 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.