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

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 25% 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 (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
36 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
294 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
445 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Summary Twitter Wikipedia Dimensions citations
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
24909527
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.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 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 445 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%
Colombia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 435 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 67 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 11%
Other 46 10%
Researcher 44 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 32 7%
Other 140 31%
Unknown 69 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 180 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 73 16%
Social Sciences 28 6%
Psychology 19 4%
Unspecified 10 2%
Other 44 10%
Unknown 91 20%

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 30 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,309,521
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Medical Education
#172
of 2,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,530
of 230,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Education
#1
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,865 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. 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 230,635 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 25 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 96% of its contemporaries.

This page is provided by Altmetric.