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.
A randomized clinical trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for cancer of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction
2016273 citationsFredrik Klevebro, Gabriella Alexandersson von Döbeln et al.Annals of Oncologyprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of P Lind'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 P Lind with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites P Lind more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by P Lind. 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 P Lind. The network helps show where P Lind may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of P Lind
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of P Lind.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of P Lind 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 P Lind. P Lind is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Neoptolemos, John P., Paula Ghaneh, David Cunningham, et al.. (2016). ESPAC-4 : A Multicenter, International, Randomized Controlled Phase III Trial of Adjuvant Combination Chemotherapy of Gemcitabine (GEM) and Capecitabine (CAP), Versus Monotherapy Gemcitabine in Patients With Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. Pancreas. 45(10). 1529–1529.2 indexed citations
6.
Klevebro, Fredrik, Gabriella Alexandersson von Döbeln, N. Wang, et al.. (2016). A randomized clinical trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for cancer of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction. Annals of Oncology. 27(4). 660–667.273 indexed citations breakdown →
Kresnik, E., et al.. (1997). [Use of a gamma probe for intraoperative localization of parathyroid adenomas with Tc-99m-tetrofosmin and Tc-99m-sestamibi].. PubMed. 24(2). 73–8.2 indexed citations
11.
Lind, P, et al.. (1997). Scintimammography using Tc-99m tetrofosmin.. PubMed. 24(2). 50–4.11 indexed citations
12.
Mikosch, Peter, et al.. (1994). [Thyroid volume and iodine supply of 6 to 17 year old students. Results 3 years after the introduction of increased iodized salt].. PubMed. 33(6). 235–8.8 indexed citations
13.
Költringer, P, et al.. (1991). [Kinetic effects of 6% hydroxyethyl starch 200.000/0.6-0.66 in hypervolemic hemodilution].. PubMed. 18 Suppl 1. 20–2.1 indexed citations
14.
Eber, O, et al.. (1990). [Iodine supplementation in the province of Styria].. PubMed. 140(9). 241–4.4 indexed citations
Költringer, P, et al.. (1988). Calcium dobesilate and its effects on hemorheology and microcirculation.. PubMed. 26(10). 500–2.8 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.