Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context
Impact in
- Surgery 168
Classified as
- Journal
- Medical Entomology and Zoology
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w60104086 →Countries where authors are citing Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context
This map shows the geographic impact of Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context. 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 Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context
This network shows the impact of Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context.
About Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context
This paper, published in 2000, received 2.1k indexed citations . Written by Matthias Egger, George Davey Smith and Douglas G. Altman covering the research area of Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty (259 citations), Surgery (168 citations), Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health (166 citations), General Health Professions (143 citations) and Epidemiology (135 citations). Published in Medical Entomology and Zoology.
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/w60104086.