Charles W Duke

551 total citations
7 papers, 272 citations indexed

About

Charles W Duke is a scholar working on Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health, Clinical Psychology and Obstetrics and Gynecology. According to data from OpenAlex, Charles W Duke has authored 7 papers receiving a total of 272 indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 5 papers in Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health, 2 papers in Clinical Psychology and 2 papers in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Recurrent topics in Charles W Duke's work include Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics (3 papers), Autopsy Techniques and Outcomes (2 papers) and Global Maternal and Child Health (2 papers). Charles W Duke is often cited by papers focused on Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics (3 papers), Autopsy Techniques and Outcomes (2 papers) and Global Maternal and Child Health (2 papers). Charles W Duke collaborates with scholars based in United States, Australia and Norway. Charles W Duke's co-authors include Adolfo Correa, James E. Kucik, Debra Thompson, Leslie A. O’Leary, Suzanne M. Gilboa, Tiffany Riehle‐Colarusso, Matthew J. Strickland, Csaba Siffel, Michael Atkinson and Janet D. Cragan and has published in prestigious journals such as Obstetrics and Gynecology, MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report and BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.

In The Last Decade

Charles W Duke

7 papers receiving 261 citations

Peers — A (Enhanced Table)

Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late) cites · hero ref

Name	h						Papers	Cites
Charles W Duke United States	6	152	69	53	46	44	7	272
Ingela Hulthén Varli Sweden	8	157 1.0×	126 1.8×	35 0.7×	20 0.4×	35 0.8×	20	251
Emile Mboudou Cameroon	12	219 1.4×	127 1.8×	30 0.6×	39 0.8×	96 2.2×	72	436
Neeltje Crombag Netherlands	14	270 1.8×	90 1.3×	41 0.8×	60 1.3×	55 1.3×	36	436
Yanqiu Gao China	7	153 1.0×	89 1.3×	20 0.4×	37 0.8×	67 1.5×	15	317
Jean Robinson United States	8	58 0.4×	49 0.7×	52 1.0×	27 0.6×	25 0.6×	66	330
Lawrence Chauke South Africa	7	147 1.0×	133 1.9×	35 0.7×	12 0.3×	12 0.3×	23	235
Pascal Foumane Cameroon	10	187 1.2×	142 2.1×	32 0.6×	20 0.4×	40 0.9×	86	371
Carolyn A. Lane Canada	9	118 0.8×	111 1.6×	20 0.4×	54 1.2×	19 0.4×	14	314
James P. Youngblood United States	6	147 1.0×	152 2.2×	36 0.7×	44 1.0×	65 1.5×	8	380
Lucy Kean United Kingdom	9	262 1.7×	151 2.2×	21 0.4×	25 0.5×	24 0.5×	38	388

Countries citing papers authored by Charles W Duke

Since Specialization

Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Charles W Duke'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 Charles W Duke with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Charles W Duke more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Charles W Duke

Since Specialization

Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Charles W Duke. 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 Charles W Duke. The network helps show where Charles W Duke may publish in the future.

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Charles W Duke

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Charles W Duke. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Charles W Duke 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 Charles W Duke. Charles W Duke is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.

All Works

Sort: Min cites: Since: Top N: Style:

7 of 7 papers shown

1.

Moore, Jazmyn, Charles E. Rose, Mikyong Shin, et al.. (2024). Increased Stillbirth Rates and Exposure to Environmental Risk Factors for Stillbirth in Counties with Higher Social Vulnerability: United States, 2015–2018. Maternal and Child Health Journal. 28(12). 2026–2036. 3 indexed citations

2.

Hoyert, Donna L., Kayla N. Anderson, Lisa Waddell, et al.. (2020). Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Fetal Deaths — United States, 2015–2017. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 69(37). 1277–1282. 37 indexed citations

3.

Heinke, Dominique, Eirini Nestoridi, Sonia Hernández–Dı́az, et al.. (2019). Risk of Stillbirth for Fetuses With Specific Birth Defects. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 135(1). 133–140. 20 indexed citations

4.

Duke, Charles W, Adolfo Correa, Paul A. Romitti, Joyce A Martin, & Russell S. Kirby. (2009). Challenges and Priorities for Surveillance of Stillbirths: A Report on Two Workshops. Public Health Reports. 124(5). 652–659. 8 indexed citations

5.

Frøen, J. Frederik, Sanne J. Gordijn, Hany Abdel‐Aleem, et al.. (2009). Making stillbirths count, making numbers talk - Issues in data collection for stillbirths. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 9(1). 58–58. 88 indexed citations

6.

Correa, Adolfo, Janet D. Cragan, James E. Kucik, et al.. (2007). Contents & welcoming letter. Birth Defects Research Part A Clinical and Molecular Teratology. 79(2). 65–186. 102 indexed citations

7.

Duke, Charles W, C.J. Alverson, & Adolfo Correa. (2007). Fetal Death Certificates as a Source of Surveillance Data for Stillbirths with Birth Defects. Public Health Reports. 122(5). 664–669. 14 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.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact