Daniel H. K. Chow
- Surgery top 5%
- Pharmacology top 1%
- Pathology and Forensic Medicine top 1%
- Biomedical Engineering top 5%
- Occupational Therapy top 0.2%
- Co-authors
- Andrew D. HolmesJack C. Y. ChengJohn C. Y. LeongF.Y.D. YaoJohn H. EvansKeith D.K. LukShiwei MoMan Sang Wong
- Topics
- Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation (43 papers)Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology (33 papers)Occupational Health and Performance (30 papers)
- Partner nations
- Hong KongChinaUnited Kingdom
In The Last Decade
Daniel H. K. Chow
128 papers receiving 2.8k citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 154
- Surgery 924
- Pharmacology 902
- Pathology and Forensic Medicine 870
- Biomedical Engineering 705
- Occupational Therapy 492
Countries citing papers authored by Daniel H. K. Chow
This map shows the geographic impact of Daniel H. K. Chow'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 Daniel H. K. Chow with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Daniel H. K. Chow more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Daniel H. K. Chow
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Daniel H. K. Chow. 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 Daniel H. K. Chow. The network helps show where Daniel H. K. Chow may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Daniel H. K. Chow
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Daniel H. K. Chow. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Daniel H. K. Chow 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 Daniel H. K. Chow. Daniel H. K. Chow is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
| # | Work | Indexed citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | |
| 2 | 5 | |
| 3 | 0 | |
| 4 | 0 | |
| 5 | 2 | |
| 6 | 1 | |
| 7 | 2 | |
| 8 | 15 | |
| 9 | 6 | |
| 10 | 3 | |
| 11 | 14 | |
| 12 | 20 | |
| 13 | 22 | |
| 14 | 28 | |
| 15 | 66 | |
| 16 | 24 | |
| 17 | 41 | |
| 18 | 67 | |
| 19 | How bone density testing influenced osteoporosis treatment in a community hospital. | 0 |
| 20 | 31 |
About Daniel H. K. Chow
Daniel H. K. Chow is a scholar working on Occupational Therapy, Orthopedics and Sports Medicine and Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation, having authored 140 papers that have together received 3.0k indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation (43 papers), Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology (33 papers) and Occupational Health and Performance (30 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Occupational Therapy (492 citations), Pharmacology (902 citations) and Pathology and Forensic Medicine (870 citations). Daniel H. K. Chow has collaborated with scholars based in Hong Kong, China and United Kingdom. Frequent co-authors include Andrew D. Holmes, Jack C. Y. Cheng, John C. Y. Leong, F.Y.D. Yao, John H. Evans, Keith D.K. Luk, Shiwei Mo, Man Sang Wong, Alon Lai and Malcolm H. Pope. Their work appears in journals such as Scientific Reports, Spine and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research.
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.