Countries where authors publish in Spine Deformity
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Spine Deformity. 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 papers published in Spine Deformity with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Spine Deformity more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Spine Deformity. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers published in Spine Deformity.
About Spine Deformity
The 1.7k papers published in Spine Deformity in the last decades have received a total of 13.9k indexed citations . Papers published in Spine Deformity usually cover Surgery (1.3k papers), Pathology and Forensic Medicine (56 papers), Biochemistry (19 papers), Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine (4 papers) and Genetics (22 papers) specifically the topics of Scoliosis diagnosis and treatment (1.1k papers), Spinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques (127 papers), Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology (52 papers), Pelvic and Acetabular Injuries (36 papers), Surgical site infection prevention (29 papers), Intraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic Effects (27 papers), Blood transfusion and management (19 papers) and Connective tissue disorders research (18 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Spine Deformity are Peter O. Newton, Lawrence G. Lenke, David L. Skaggs, A. Noelle Larson, Paul D. Sponseller, Tracey P. Bastrom, Burt Yaszay, Baron S. Lonner, Virginie Lafage and John M. Flynn.
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.