↓ Skip to main content

Performance of medical students on a virtual reality simulator for knee arthroscopy: an analysis of learning curves and predictors of performance

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Surgery, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 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
Performance of medical students on a virtual reality simulator for knee arthroscopy: an analysis of learning curves and predictors of performance
Published in
BMC Surgery, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12893-016-0129-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefan Rahm, Karl Wieser, Ilhui Wicki, Livia Holenstein, Sandro F. Fucentese, Christian Gerber

Abstract

Ethical concerns for surgical training on patients, limited working hours with fewer cases per trainee and the potential to better select talented persons for arthroscopic surgery raise the interest in simulator training for arthroscopic surgery. It was the purpose of this study to analyze learning curves of novices using a knee arthroscopy simulator and to correlate their performance with potentially predictive factors. Twenty medical students completed visuospatial tests and were then subjected to a simulator training program of eight 30 min sessions. Their test results were quantitatively correlated with their simulator performance at initiation, during and at the end of the program. The mean arthroscopic performance score (z-score in points) at the eight test sessions were 1. -35 (range, -126 to -5) points, 2. -16 (range, -30 to -2), 3. -11 (range, -35 to 4), 4. -3 (range, -16 to 5), 5. -2 (range, -28 to 7), 6. 1 (range, -18 to 8), 7. 2 (range, -9 to 8), 8. 2 (range, -4 to 7). Scores improved significantly from sessions 1 to 2 (p = 0.001), 2 to 3 (p = 0.052) and 3 to 4 (p = 0.001) but not thereafter. None of the investigated parameters predicted performance or development of arthroscopic performance. Novices improve significantly within four 30 min test virtual arthroscopy knee simulator training but not thereafter within the setting studied. No factors, predicting talent or speed and magnitude of improvement of skills could be identified.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 110 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 17%
Student > Master 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 5%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 31 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 35%
Computer Science 8 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Engineering 4 4%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 35 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,102,908
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Surgery
#239
of 1,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,837
of 302,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Surgery
#9
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,359 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 302,893 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.