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.
Defining and classifying clinical indicators for quality improvement
2003724 citationsJan MainzInternational Journal for Quality in Health Careprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Jan Mainz'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 Jan Mainz with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Jan Mainz more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Jan Mainz. 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 Jan Mainz. The network helps show where Jan Mainz may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Jan Mainz
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Jan Mainz.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Jan Mainz 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 Jan Mainz. Jan Mainz is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Mainz, Jan, et al.. (2015). [The patient's team and the responsible doctor as a condition for efficient patient courses].. PubMed. 177(48). V05150436–V05150436.2 indexed citations
9.
Mainz, Jan, et al.. (2010). [Quality of outpatient tonsillectomy performed in ear, nose & throat practice].. PubMed. 172(28). 2049–54.1 indexed citations
10.
Mainz, Jan, et al.. (2002). Sundhedsfaglige standarder i akkreditering. Ugeskrift for Læger. 38.
11.
Mainz, Jan, et al.. (2001). [The National Indicator Project for monitoring and improvement of professional performance within health care].. PubMed. 163(46). 6401–6.10 indexed citations
12.
Ammentorp, Jette, et al.. (2001). [Measurement of quality of care and the "soft values" at a pediatric department].. PubMed. 163(50). 7048–52.4 indexed citations
13.
Mainz, Jan, et al.. (2001). Det Nationale Indikatorprojekt til overvågning og forbedring af de faglige kerneydelser. Ugeskrift for Læger. 163(46).1 indexed citations
14.
Mainz, Jan, et al.. (1999). Overvågning og forbedring af lægefaglige kerneydelser: Brug af indikatorer. Ugeskrift for Læger. 1–42.1 indexed citations
15.
Mainz, Jan, et al.. (1997). Kommunikation mellem primær og sekundærsektoren og dens betydning for patientforløbet. Ugeskrift for Læger. 7–9.1 indexed citations
16.
Mainz, Jan, et al.. (1994). Krav til spørgeskemaer II. University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark).1 indexed citations
17.
Mainz, Jan, et al.. (1993). Integrering af patientperspektivet i kvalitetsvurdering - En ny metode. University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark). 108.1 indexed citations
18.
Mainz, Jan, et al.. (1992). Kvalitetsvurdering, kvalitetssikring og kvalitetsforbedring i sundhedsvæsenet. Begreber og terminologi. Ugeskrift for Læger. 154(17).
19.
Mainz, Jan, et al.. (1992). Policy on quality development for the medical profession. Ugeskrift for Læger. 154(49). 3523–3533.11 indexed citations
20.
Mainz, Jan. (1992). Audit - en metode til kvalitetsvurdering i sundhedsvæsenet. Ugeskrift for Læger. 154(45).2 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.