The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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.
| Title |
Simulation training in neurosurgery: advances in education and practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/amep.s113565 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sanjay Konakondla, Reginald Fong, Clemens M Schirmer |
| Abstract |
The current simulation technology used for neurosurgical training leaves much to be desired. Significant efforts are thoroughly exhausted in hopes of developing simulations that translate to give learners the "real-life" feel. Though a respectable goal, this may not be necessary as the application for simulation in neurosurgical training may be most useful in early learners. The ultimate uniformly agreeable endpoint of improved outcome and patient safety drives these investments. We explore the development, availability, educational taskforces, cost burdens and the simulation advancements in neurosurgical training. The technologies can be directed at achieving early resident milestones placed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. We discuss various aspects of neurosurgery disciplines with specific technologic advances of simulation software. An overview of the scholarly landscape of the recent publications in the realm of medical simulation and virtual reality pertaining to neurologic surgery is provided. We analyze concurrent concept overlap between PubMed headings and provide a graphical overview of the associations between these terms. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 94 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 11% |
| Researcher | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 19% |
| Unknown | 28 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 34% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 10% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Unknown | 29 | 31% |
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 04 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,339,158
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,883
of 327,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 327,822 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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