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.
European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition—summary document
2007767 citationsNick Perry, Mireille J. M. Broeders et al.Annals of Oncologyprofile →
European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis
2013611 citationsIsabel Amendoeira, Nick Perry et al.profile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Chris de Wolf'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 Chris de Wolf with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Chris de Wolf more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Chris de Wolf. 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 Chris de Wolf. The network helps show where Chris de Wolf may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Chris de Wolf
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Chris de Wolf.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Chris de Wolf 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 Chris de Wolf. Chris de Wolf is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
19 of 19 papers shown
1.
Amendoeira, Isabel, Nick Perry, M. Broeders, et al.. (2013). European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 1–160.611 indexed citations breakdown →
Wilson, R., Per Skaane, Chris de Wolf, Fabienne Thibault, & Paul Taylor. (2010). E2. Current issues in breast screening. European Journal of Cancer Supplements. 8(3). 4–6.1 indexed citations
5.
Wilson, R., Per Skaane, Chris de Wolf, Fabienne Thibault, & Paul Taylor. (2010). Current issues in breast screening.1 indexed citations
Perry, Nicholas, Mireille J. M. Broeders, Chris de Wolf, et al.. (2008). European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition - summary document. Oncology in Clinical Practice. 4(2). 74–86.200 indexed citations
8.
Perry, Nicholas, Mireille J. M. Broeders, Chris de Wolf, et al.. (2008). Europejskie zalecenia dotyczące jakości badań przesiewowych i rozpoznawania raka piersi. Czwarta edycja - streszczenie dokumentu. Via Medica Journals. 4(2). 74–86.1 indexed citations
Perry, Nick, Mireille J. M. Broeders, Chris de Wolf, et al.. (2007). European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition—summary document. Annals of Oncology. 19(4). 614–622.767 indexed citations breakdown →
Patnick, Julietta, Joseph Monsonégo, Chris de Wolf, et al.. (2001). ESGO consensus document on cervical cancer screening. European Society of Gynaecological Oncology.. PubMed. 22(2). 99–101.2 indexed citations
17.
O’Higgins, N. J., Dimitrios Linos, M Blichert-Toft, et al.. (1998). European guidelines for quality assurance in the surgical management of mammographically detected lesions. European Breast Cancer Working Group.. PubMed. 87(1). 110–2.16 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.