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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Reporting guidelines for health care simulation research: extensions to the CONSORT and STROBE statements
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Simulation, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s41077-016-0025-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adam Cheng, David Kessler, Ralph Mackinnon, Todd P. Chang, Vinay M. Nadkarni, Elizabeth A. Hunt, Jordan Duval-Arnould, Yiqun Lin, David A. Cook, Martin Pusic, Joshua Hui, David Moher, Matthias Egger, Marc Auerbach, for the International Network for Simulation-based Pediatric Innovation, Research, and Education (INSPIRE) Reporting Guidelines Investigators |
| Abstract |
Simulation-based research (SBR) is rapidly expanding but the quality of reporting needs improvement. For a reader to critically assess a study, the elements of the study need to be clearly reported. Our objective was to develop reporting guidelines for SBR by creating extensions to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statements. An iterative multistep consensus-building process was used on the basis of the recommended steps for developing reporting guidelines. The consensus process involved the following: (1) developing a steering committee, (2) defining the scope of the reporting guidelines, (3) identifying a consensus panel, (4) generating a list of items for discussion via online premeeting survey, (5) conducting a consensus meeting, and (6) drafting reporting guidelines with an explanation and elaboration document. The following 11 extensions were recommended for CONSORT: item 1 (title/abstract), item 2 (background), item 5 (interventions), item 6 (outcomes), item 11 (blinding), item 12 (statistical methods), item 15 (baseline data), item 17 (outcomes/ estimation), item 20 (limitations), item 21 (generalizability), and item 25 (funding). The following 10 extensions were recommended for STROBE: item 1 (title/abstract), item 2 (background/rationale), item 7 (variables), item 8 (data sources/measurement), item 12 (statistical methods), item 14 (descriptive data), item 16 (main results), item 19 (limitations), item 21 (generalizability), and item 22 (funding). An elaboration document was created to provide examples and explanation for each extension. We have developed extensions for the CONSORT and STROBE Statements that can help improve the quality of reporting for SBR (Sim Healthcare00:00-00, 2016). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 78 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 12 | 15% |
| United States | 9 | 12% |
| Australia | 8 | 10% |
| Canada | 6 | 8% |
| France | 2 | 3% |
| Saudi Arabia | 2 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Colombia | 1 | 1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 32 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 48 | 62% |
| Scientists | 18 | 23% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 293 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 288 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 42 | 14% |
| Researcher | 38 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 35 | 12% |
| Other | 23 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 18 | 6% |
| Other | 79 | 27% |
| Unknown | 58 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 111 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 44 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 3% |
| Engineering | 8 | 3% |
| Psychology | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 33 | 11% |
| Unknown | 82 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 14 April 2021.
All research outputs
#849,339
of 25,035,235 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Simulation
#22
of 264 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,834
of 374,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Simulation
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,035,235 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 264 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 374,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.