Hit papers significantly outperform the citation benchmark for their cohort. A paper qualifies
if it has ≥500 total citations, achieves ≥1.5× the top-1% citation threshold for papers in the
same subfield and year (this is the minimum needed to enter the top 1%, not the average
within it), or reaches the top citation threshold in at least one of its specific research
topics.
Countries citing papers authored by Avedis Donabedian
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Avedis Donabedian'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 Avedis Donabedian with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Avedis Donabedian more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Avedis Donabedian
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Avedis Donabedian. 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 Avedis Donabedian. The network helps show where Avedis Donabedian may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Avedis Donabedian
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Avedis Donabedian.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Avedis Donabedian based on the total number of
citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges
represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together.
Node borders
signify the number of papers an author published with Avedis Donabedian. Avedis Donabedian is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Donabedian, Avedis & Edward D. Berkowitz. (2003). History of Health Services Research ProjectInterview with Avedis Donabedian.2 indexed citations
2.
Donabedian, Avedis. (2002). An Introduction to Quality Assurance in Health Care.626 indexed citations breakdown →
3.
Donabedian, Avedis. (2001). Los sietes pilares de la calidad.. Revista de Calidad Asistencial. 16(1). 96–100.1 indexed citations
4.
Donabedian, Avedis. (2001). Evaluacón de tecnología y caldiad. Estudio comparativo de evidenias y ambigüedades.. Revista de Calidad Asistencial. 16(1). 89–94.1 indexed citations
5.
Donabedian, Avedis. (1993). Conferencia Magistral. Continuidad y cambio en la búsqueda de la calidad. Salud Pública de México. 35(3). 238–247.4 indexed citations
6.
Donabedian, Avedis, et al.. (1993). Effectiveness of computer-aided learning in community health nursing.. PubMed. 11(3). 101–12.2 indexed citations
Donabedian, Avedis. (1988). The Quality of Care. JAMA. 260(12). 1743–1743.3607 indexed citations breakdown →
10.
Donabedian, Avedis. (1988). The quality of care. How can it be assessed?. JAMA. 260(12). 1743–1748.4404 indexed citations breakdown →
11.
Donabedian, Avedis, et al.. (1987). Los Sistemas Nacionales de Salud. Una perspectiva comparativa. Revista de Administración Pública. 1(69).1 indexed citations
12.
Donabedian, Avedis. (1986). Medical care chartbook.11 indexed citations
Donabedian, Avedis. (1976). Effects of MEDICARE and MEDICAID on access to and quality of health care.. PubMed. 91(4). 322–31.28 indexed citations
18.
Donabedian, Avedis. (1974). The numerology of utilization control.. PubMed. 11(3). 229–32.
19.
Donabedian, Avedis. (1969). Some issues in health insurance.. PubMed. 22(5). 579–89.1 indexed citations
20.
Donabedian, Avedis. (1966). Evaluating the quality of medical care, Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. 44. 166–206.74 indexed citations
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.