↓ Skip to main content

Virtual reality simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 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
Virtual reality simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008237.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catharine M Walsh, Mary E Sherlock, Simon C Ling, Heather Carnahan

Abstract

Traditionally, training in gastrointestinal endoscopy has been based upon an apprenticeship model, with novice endoscopists learning basic skills under the supervision of experienced preceptors in the clinical setting. Over the last two decades, however, the growing awareness of the need for patient safety has brought the issue of simulation-based training to the forefront. While the use of simulation-based training may have important educational and societal advantages, the effectiveness of virtual reality gastrointestinal endoscopy simulators has yet to be clearly demonstrated.

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 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Canada 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Unknown 120 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 16%
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 13%
Other 12 9%
Other 34 27%
Unknown 10 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 55%
Social Sciences 10 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Engineering 7 5%
Psychology 6 5%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 12 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 April 2014.
All research outputs
#6,509,567
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,827
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,437
of 121,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#68
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 121,741 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 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.