| Title |
Simulation in bronchoscopy: current and future perspectives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/amep.s139929 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Philip Mørkeberg Nilsson, Therese Maria Henriette Naur, Paul Frost Clementsen, Lars Konge |
| Abstract |
To provide an overview of current literature that informs how to approach simulation practice of bronchoscopy and discuss how findings from other simulation research can help inform the use of simulation in bronchoscopy training. We conducted a literature search on simulation training of bronchoscopy and divided relevant studies in three categories: 1) structuring simulation training in bronchoscopy, 2) assessment of competence in bronchoscopy training, and 3) development of cheap alternatives for bronchoscopy simulation. Bronchoscopy simulation is effective, and the training should be structured as distributed practice with mastery learning criteria (ie, training until a certain level of competence is achieved). Dyad practice (training in pairs) is possible and may increase utility of available simulators. Trainee performance should be assessed with assessment tools with established validity. Three-dimensional printing is a promising new technology opening possibilities for developing cheap simulators with innovative features. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 16 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 37% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 16 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 December 2017.
All research outputs
#23,100,963
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#300,618
of 341,828 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 0.2. 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 341,828 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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