The World Health Report 2005 - make every mother and child count
Impact in
Classified as
- Authors
- Wim Van LerbergheZoë Matthews
- Journal
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton)
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w1025907 →Countries where authors are citing The World Health Report 2005 - make every mother and child count
This map shows the geographic impact of The World Health Report 2005 - make every mother and child count. 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 The World Health Report 2005 - make every mother and child count with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites The World Health Report 2005 - make every mother and child count more than expected).
Fields of papers citing The World Health Report 2005 - make every mother and child count
This network shows the impact of The World Health Report 2005 - make every mother and child count. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the The World Health Report 2005 - make every mother and child count.
About The World Health Report 2005 - make every mother and child count
This paper, published in 2005, received 839 indexed citations . Written by Wim Van Lerberghe and Zoë Matthews covering the research area of Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health (435 citations), Obstetrics and Gynecology (144 citations), General Health Professions (119 citations), Nutrition and Dietetics (107 citations) and Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health (71 citations). Published in ePrints Soton (University of Southampton).
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/w1025907.