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 |
In vivo validation of a system for haptic feedback of tool vibrations in robotic surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-012-2452-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karlin Bark, William McMahan, Austin Remington, Jamie Gewirtz, Alexei Wedmid, David I. Lee, Katherine J. Kuchenbecker |
| Abstract |
Robotic minimally invasive surgery (RMIS) lacks the haptic (kinesthetic and tactile) cues that surgeons are accustomed to receiving in open and laparoscopic surgery. We previously introduced a method for adding tactile and audio feedback of tool vibrations to RMIS systems, creating sensations similar to what one feels and hears when using a laparoscopic tool. Our prior work showed that surgeons performing box-trainer tasks significantly preferred having this feedback and believed that it helped them concentrate on the task, but we did not know how well our approach would work in a clinically relevant setting. This study constituted the first in vivo test of our system. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 57% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Turkey | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 99 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Researcher | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 12% |
| Unknown | 17 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 53 | 52% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 20 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 27 November 2013.
All research outputs
#6,006,885
of 22,701,287 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#1,121
of 6,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,013
of 163,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#14
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,701,287 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,003 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. 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 163,898 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.