↓ Skip to main content

A survey of current state of training of plastic surgery residents

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
A survey of current state of training of plastic surgery residents
Published in
BMC Research Notes, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-2561-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Asra Hashmi, Faraz A. Khan, Floyd Herman, Nathan Narasimhan, Shaher Khan, Carrie Kubiak, Eti Gursel, David A. Edelman

Abstract

Plastic surgery training is undergoing major changes however there is paucity of data detailing the current state of training as perceived by plastic surgical trainees. Our aim was to determine the quality of training as perceived by the current trainee pool and their future plans. A 25-item anonymous survey with three discrete sections (demographics, quality of training, and post-graduate career plans) was developed and distributed to plastic surgery residents during the academic year 2013. With the confidence interval of 95% and margin of error of 10%, our target response rate was 87 responders. We received a total of 114 respondents with all levels of Post Graduate Year in training represented. Upon comparison of residents with debt of <100,000 to residents with a debt of >250,000, those with higher debt were significantly less interested in fellowship training (p value 0.05) and were more likely to pursue private practice (p value <0.01). Disciplines within plastic surgery least offered as a separate rotation were microsurgery (45%) followed by aesthetic surgery (33%). 53.7% of the residents felt that they were least trained in aesthetic surgery followed by burn surgery 45.4%. Of note 56.4% intended to seek additional training after residency. Moreover residents with an average of 6.4 months of experience in an individual subspecialty were more likely to feel comfortable with that specialty. This survey highlights the areas and subspecialties that deserve attention as perceived by the current trainee pool.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 6 22%
Other 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Lecturer 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 7 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 44%
Computer Science 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Sports and Recreations 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 10 37%

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 13 April 2018.
All research outputs
#10,225,860
of 12,802,184 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,976
of 2,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,011
of 274,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,802,184 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,875 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 274,101 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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