↓ Skip to main content

Cadaveric surgery in core gynaecology training: a feasibility study

Overview of attention for article published in Gynecological Surgery, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Cadaveric surgery in core gynaecology training: a feasibility study
Published in
Gynecological Surgery, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s10397-017-1034-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chou Phay Lim, Mark Roberts, Tony Chalhoub, Jason Waugh, Laura Delgaty

Abstract

Fresh frozen cadaver training has been proposed as a better model than virtual reality simulators in laparoscopy training. We aimed to explore the relationship between cadaveric surgical training and increased surgical confidence.To determine feasibility, we devised two 1-day cadaveric surgical training days targeted at trainees in obstetrics and gynaecology. Seven defined surgical skills were covered during the course of the day. The relationship between surgical training and surgical confidence was explored using both quantitative (confidence scores) and qualitative tools (questionnaires). Participants rated a consistent improvement in their level of confidence after the training. They universally found the experience positive and three overarching themes emerged from the qualitative analysis including self-concept, social persuasion and stability of task. It is pragmatically feasible to provide procedure-specific cadaveric surgical training alongside supervised clinical training. This small, non-generalisable study suggests that cadaveric training may contribute to an increase in surgical self-confidence and efficacy. This will form the basis of a larger study and needs to be explored in more depth with a larger population.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 27%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Professor 2 9%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 45%
Engineering 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 April 2018.
All research outputs
#8,022,678
of 12,788,180 outputs
Outputs from Gynecological Surgery
#54
of 88 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,675
of 274,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gynecological Surgery
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,788,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 88 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 274,097 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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