↓ 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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
163 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
221 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 221 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 214 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 11%
Other 22 10%
Student > Postgraduate 22 10%
Researcher 19 9%
Other 70 32%
Unknown 30 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 112 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 10%
Social Sciences 19 9%
Psychology 9 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 4%
Other 13 6%
Unknown 39 18%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 November 2012.
All research outputs
#16,046,765
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care Medicine
#7,140
of 9,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,238
of 122,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care Medicine
#51
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,339 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 122,178 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.