↓ Skip to main content

Looking in the mirror: Self-debriefing versus instructor debriefing for simulated crises*

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care Medicine, June 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
129 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
203 Mendeley
Title
Looking in the mirror: Self-debriefing versus instructor debriefing for simulated crises*
Published in
Critical Care Medicine, June 2011
DOI 10.1097/ccm.0b013e31820eb8be
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sylvain Boet, M. Dylan Bould, Heinz R. Bruppacher, François Desjardins, Deven B. Chandra, Viren N. Naik

Abstract

To examine the effectiveness of self-debriefing as compared to instructor debriefing in the change of nontechnical skills performance of anesthesiology residents.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Unknown 196 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 11%
Student > Postgraduate 22 11%
Other 21 10%
Researcher 19 9%
Other 68 33%
Unknown 19 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 106 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 10%
Social Sciences 18 9%
Psychology 8 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 3%
Other 18 9%
Unknown 26 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 January 2017.
All research outputs
#10,319,768
of 18,200,159 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care Medicine
#5,961
of 8,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,398
of 111,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care Medicine
#26
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,200,159 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,336 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 111,814 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 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 56% of its contemporaries.