↓ 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

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 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 4 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 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 122 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 19%
Other 18 14%
Student > Postgraduate 16 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Researcher 13 10%
Other 42 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 61%
Social Sciences 18 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Unspecified 5 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 4%
Other 12 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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
#3,369,932
of 12,279,872 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care Medicine
#2,700
of 6,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,889
of 96,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care Medicine
#24
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,279,872 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,501 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 96,498 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.