James E. De Muth

27 papers receiving 272 citations

Peers

James E. De Muth
Comparison fields: 5 of 129
  • Geriatrics and Gerontology 38
  • Statistics and Probability 21
  • Family Practice 4
  • Issues, ethics and legal aspects 2
  • General Health Professions 37
Replace Kirby P. Lee with:
Kirby P. Lee United States
Chao-Jung Wu Canada
Melissa Barber United States
Katrina M. Romagnoli United States
Vincent C. Dennis United States
Elena Rocca Norway
Narelle Smith Australia
Dušanka Krajnović Serbia
Camille Craig Canada
Peter A. Lewis United Kingdom
James E. De Muth relative to Kirby P. Lee United States Kirby P. Lee's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×5.3×
Kirby P. Lee · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by James E. De Muth

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of James E. De Muth's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by James E. De Muth with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites James E. De Muth more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by James E. De Muth

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by James E. De Muth. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by James E. De Muth. The network helps show where James E. De Muth may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 6 scholars most cited alongside James E. De Muth, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.

Border = papers with James E. De Muth Line = papers co-authored together James E. De Muth links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 27 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1 201480
2 200836
3 201235
4
Assessing parallelism prior to determining relative potency.
200629
5 200521
6 201219
7 200611
8 19798
9 19907
10 20087
11 19764
12 19884
13 19844
14 19753
15 19833
16 19873
17 19883
18 19912
19 19762
20 19872

About James E. De Muth

James E. De Muth is a scholar working on Geriatrics and Gerontology, Pharmacology, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Education and Emergency Medical Services, having authored 27 papers that have together received 293 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes (7 papers), Pharmacy and Medical Practices (7 papers), Innovations in Medical Education (5 papers), Patient Safety and Medication Errors (3 papers), Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials (3 papers), Online and Blended Learning (2 papers), Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare (1 paper) and Innovations in Educational Methods (1 paper). The work is most often cited by research in Geriatrics and Gerontology (38 citations), Statistics and Probability (21 citations), Family Practice (4 citations), Issues, ethics and legal aspects (2 citations) and General Health Professions (37 citations). James E. De Muth has collaborated with scholars based in United States. Frequent co-authors include Eric C. Buxton, Walter W. Hauck, David Lansky, Sally S. Seaver, Janice D. Callahan and Michael E. Pitterle. Their work appears in journals such as American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy and Sexually Transmitted Infections.

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact