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.
Why invest, and what it will take to improve breastfeeding practices?
20161.5k citationsNigel Rollins, Nita Bhandari et al.The Lancetprofile →
Author Peers
Peers are selected by citation overlap in the author's most active subfields.
citations ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Chessa Lutter'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 Chessa Lutter with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Chessa Lutter more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Chessa Lutter. 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 Chessa Lutter. The network helps show where Chessa Lutter may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Chessa Lutter
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Chessa Lutter.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Chessa Lutter 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 Chessa Lutter. Chessa Lutter is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Rollins, Nigel, Nita Bhandari, Nemat Hajeebhoy, et al.. (2016). Why invest, and what it will take to improve breastfeeding practices?. The Lancet. 387(10017). 491–504.1488 indexed citations breakdown →
Lutter, Chessa, et al.. (2009). Landscape analysis on countries' readiness to accelerate action to reduce maternal and child undernutrition: the Peru assessment.. 49–54.1 indexed citations
13.
Álvarez‐Hernández, Everardo, et al.. (2009). Landscape analysis of countries' readiness to accelerate actions to reduce maternal and child chronic malnutrition: the Guatemala assessment.. 38–42.2 indexed citations
Dutta, Tanushree, et al.. (2005). Caregivers' attributes of complementary foods in four countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. The FASEB Journal. 19(4).1 indexed citations
16.
Lutter, Chessa. (2003). Meeting the challenge to improve complementary feeding.. 27(27). 4–9.32 indexed citations
17.
Lutter, Chessa, Kathryn G. Dewey, & Jorge L. Rosado. (2003). Nutrient composition for fortified complementary foods: Proceedings of a technical consultation held at the Pan American Health Organization, Washington, DC, October 4-5, 2001 - Foreword. Journal of Nutrition. 133(9). 2938–3022.3 indexed citations
Lutter, Chessa, R Pérez-Escamilla, & Tina Sanghvi. (1996). Maternal employment and exclusive breastfeeding in Latin America: The effect of usual versus current employment. The FASEB Journal. 10(3). 1407–1407.5 indexed citations
20.
Pérez-Escamilla, R, et al.. (1995). EXCLUSIVE BREAST-FEEDING DURATION IS ASSOCIATED WITH ATTITUDINAL, SOCIOECONOMIC AND BIOCULTURAL DETERMINANTS IN 3 LATIN-AMERICAN COUNTRIES. Web Science.1 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.