Practice Guidelines for Central Venous Access
Impact in
- Surgery 108
Classified as
- Journal
- Anesthesiology
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1097/aln.0b013e31823c9569 →Countries where authors are citing Practice Guidelines for Central Venous Access
This map shows the geographic impact of Practice Guidelines for Central Venous Access. 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 Practice Guidelines for Central Venous Access with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Practice Guidelines for Central Venous Access more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Practice Guidelines for Central Venous Access
This network shows the impact of Practice Guidelines for Central Venous Access. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Practice Guidelines for Central Venous Access.
About Practice Guidelines for Central Venous Access
This paper, published in 2012, received 363 indexed citations . Written by Stephen M. Rupp, Jeffrey L. Apfelbaum, Casey D. Blitt, Robert A. Caplan, Richard T. Connis, Karen B. Domino, Lee A. Fleisher, Stuart A. Grant, Jonathan B. Mark and Jeffrey P. Morray covering the research area of Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, Surgery and Emergency Medical Services. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Emergency Medical Services (237 citations), Surgery (108 citations), Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine (90 citations), Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine (52 citations) and Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine (44 citations). Published in Anesthesiology.
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.
This paper is also available at doi.org/10.1097/aln.0b013e31823c9569.