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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A pilot study to assess the utility of a freely downloadable mobile application simulator for undergraduate clinical skills training: a single-blinded, randomised controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-017-1085-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Richard D. Bartlett, Dina Radenkovic, Stefan Mitrasinovic, Andrew Cole, Iva Pavkovic, Peyton Cheong Phey Denn, Mahrukh Hussain, Magdalena Kogler, Natalia Koutsopodioti, Wasima Uddin, Ivan Beckley, Hana Abubakar, Deborah Gill, Daron Smith |
| Abstract |
Medical simulators offer an invaluable educational resource for medical trainees. However, owing to cost and portability restrictions, they have traditionally been limited to simulation centres. With the advent of sophisticated mobile technology, simulators have become cheaper and more accessible. Touch Surgery is one such freely downloadable mobile application simulator (MAS) used by over one million healthcare professionals worldwide. Nevertheless, to date, it has never been formally validated as an adjunct in undergraduate medical education. Medical students in the final 3 years of their programme were recruited and randomised to one of three revision interventions: 1) no formal revision resources, 2) traditional revision resources, or 3) MAS. Students completed pre-test questionnaires and were then assessed on their ability to complete an undisclosed male urinary catheterisation scenario. Following a one-hour quarantined revision period, all students repeated the scenario. Both attempts were scored by allocation-blinded examiners against an objective 46-point mark scheme. A total of 27 medical students were randomised (n = 9 per group). Mean scores improved between baseline and post-revision attempts by 8.7% (p = 0.003), 19.8% (p = 0.0001), and 15.9% (p = 0.001) for no resources, traditional resources, and MAS, respectively. However, when comparing mean score improvements between groups there were no significant differences. Mobile simulators offer an unconventional, yet potentially useful adjunct to enhance undergraduate clinical skills education. Our results indicate that MAS's perform comparably to current gold-standard revision resources; however, they may confer significant advantages in terms of cost-effectiveness and practice flexibility. Not applicable. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 16 | 40% |
| Spain | 4 | 10% |
| United States | 4 | 10% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Belgium | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 24 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 20% |
| Scientists | 6 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 165 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 12% |
| Researcher | 16 | 10% |
| Other | 10 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 30 | 18% |
| Unknown | 56 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 14% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 7 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 8% |
| Unknown | 64 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 June 2019.
All research outputs
#1,350,472
of 25,171,741 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#139
of 3,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,397
of 452,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#5
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,171,741 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 3,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 452,544 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 102 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.