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 |
The reliability and usability of the Anesthesiologists’ Non-Technical Skills (ANTS) system in simulation research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Simulation, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s41077-016-0013-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura Zwaan, Lian Tjon Soei Len, Cordula Wagner, Dick van Groeningen, Mark Kolenbrander, Ralf Krage |
| Abstract |
Non-technical skills (NTS) such as leadership and team work are important in providing good quality of care. One system to assess physicians' NTS is the Anesthesiologists' Non-Technical Skills (ANTS) system. The present study evaluates the ANTS system on the interrater reliability and usability for research purposes. Ten anesthesiologists and 20 anesthesiology residents performed two resuscitation scenarios (with and without the presence of distractors) in a simulation room with a full-scale patient simulator. The scenarios were videotaped. Two independent raters rated the NTS of the anesthesiologists using the ANTS system. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to determine the interrater reliability of both the total NTS score and the measured differences between the two scenarios. The raters filled out a questionnaire to obtain insights in the usability of the ANTS system for research purposes. The ICC for the total score of the NTS was substantial (0.683), and the ICC of the elements varied between 0.371 for assessing capabilities and 0.670 for providing and maintaining standards. The intraclass correlation coefficient of measuring differences was fair (0.502). The raters judged the usability as good. The ANTS system was reliable for the total score and usable to measure physicians' NTS in a research setting. However, there was variation between the reliability of the elements. We recommend that if the ANTS is used for research, a pilot study should determine elements not applicable or observable in the scenario of interest; these elements should be excluded from the study. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 20% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 33 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 24% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 15% |
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 18% |
| Unknown | 4 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 53% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 6 | 18% |
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 28 September 2016.
All research outputs
#12,899,167
of 22,876,619 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Simulation
#204
of 234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,694
of 340,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Simulation
#9
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,876,619 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 234 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.8. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 340,472 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.