P.G.M. Peer

615 total citations
9 papers, 435 citations indexed

About

P.G.M. Peer is a scholar working on Oncology, Cancer Research and Pathology and Forensic Medicine. According to data from OpenAlex, P.G.M. Peer has authored 9 papers receiving a total of 435 indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 6 papers in Oncology, 5 papers in Cancer Research and 3 papers in Pathology and Forensic Medicine. Recurrent topics in P.G.M. Peer's work include Breast Cancer Treatment Studies (5 papers), Global Cancer Incidence and Screening (3 papers) and Breast Lesions and Carcinomas (3 papers). P.G.M. Peer is often cited by papers focused on Breast Cancer Treatment Studies (5 papers), Global Cancer Incidence and Screening (3 papers) and Breast Lesions and Carcinomas (3 papers). P.G.M. Peer collaborates with scholars based in Netherlands, New Zealand and United States. P.G.M. Peer's co-authors include Koop Bosscha, M.F. Ernst, Raquel F. D. van la Parra, Th. Wobbes, R.P. Groenendijk, Agnès J. van de Wouw, Roel J.W. van Kampen, C. Boetes, Maaike de Boer and D.J.A. Lobbezoo and has published in prestigious journals such as British Journal of Cancer, European Journal of Cancer and Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

In The Last Decade

P.G.M. Peer

9 papers receiving 419 citations

Peers — A (Enhanced Table)

Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late) cites · hero ref

Name	h						Papers	Cites
P.G.M. Peer Netherlands	8	257	199	141	84	58	9	435
R. Wolters Germany	10	192 0.7×	187 0.9×	69 0.5×	72 0.9×	23 0.4×	14	330
Fuh Yong Wong Singapore	12	179 0.7×	161 0.8×	90 0.6×	84 1.0×	49 0.8×	49	343
Johanna Wassermann France	12	197 0.8×	98 0.5×	83 0.6×	43 0.5×	57 1.0×	41	514
Emanuele Galante Italy	12	194 0.8×	198 1.0×	54 0.4×	131 1.6×	69 1.2×	32	370
Daniel Mackey United States	5	336 1.3×	260 1.3×	75 0.5×	40 0.5×	27 0.5×	5	457
Mustafa Tükenmez Türkiye	11	181 0.7×	183 0.9×	69 0.5×	169 2.0×	124 2.1×	50	468
Robert R. Shenk United States	10	130 0.5×	231 1.2×	97 0.7×	153 1.8×	100 1.7×	19	470
B. Munárriz Spain	8	236 0.9×	129 0.6×	67 0.5×	38 0.5×	18 0.3×	19	364
Heather Beckwith United States	11	180 0.7×	151 0.8×	58 0.4×	68 0.8×	30 0.5×	22	365
Jennifer R. Garreau United States	13	211 0.8×	180 0.9×	97 0.7×	109 1.3×	87 1.5×	23	488

Countries citing papers authored by P.G.M. Peer

Since Specialization

Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of P.G.M. Peer'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.G.M. Peer with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites P.G.M. Peer more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by P.G.M. Peer

Since Specialization

Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by P.G.M. Peer. 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.G.M. Peer. The network helps show where P.G.M. Peer may publish in the future.

Co-authorship network of co-authors of P.G.M. Peer

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of P.G.M. Peer. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of P.G.M. Peer 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.G.M. Peer. P.G.M. Peer is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.

All Works

Sort: Min cites: Since: Top N: Style:

9 of 9 papers shown

Lobbezoo, D.J.A., Roel J.W. van Kampen, Adri C. Voogd, et al.. (2015). Prognosis of metastatic breast cancer: are there differences between patients with de novo and recurrent metastatic breast cancer?. British Journal of Cancer. 112(9). 1445–1451. 169 indexed citations

Parra, Raquel F. D. van la, P.G.M. Peer, M.F. Ernst, et al.. (2012). Assessment of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center nomogram to predict sentinel lymph node metastases in a Dutch breast cancer population. European Journal of Cancer. 49(3). 564–571. 19 indexed citations

Parra, Raquel F. D. van la, P.G.M. Peer, M.F. Ernst, & Koop Bosscha. (2011). Meta-analysis of predictive factors for non-sentinel lymph node metastases in breast cancer patients with a positive SLN. European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 37(4). 290–299. 66 indexed citations

Peer, P.G.M., et al.. (2010). 304 Meta-analysis of predictive factors for non sentinel lymph node metastases in breast cancer patients with a positive SLN. European Journal of Cancer Supplements. 8(3). 146–147. 2 indexed citations

Overbeek, Lucy, Livia Kapusta, P.G.M. Peer, et al.. (2005). New reference values for echocardiographic dimensions of healthy Dutch children. European Journal of Echocardiography. 7(2). 113–121. 35 indexed citations

Broeders, Mireille J. M., André L. M. Verbeek, Huub Straatman, et al.. (2002). Repeated mammographic screening reduces breast cancer mortality along the continuum of age. Journal of Medical Screening. 9(4). 163–167. 25 indexed citations

Groenendijk, R.P., Peter Bult, P.G.M. Peer, et al.. (2000). Screen-detected breast cancers have a lower mitotic activity index. British Journal of Cancer. 82(2). 381–384. 31 indexed citations

Keemers-Gels, M. E., et al.. (2000). Pain experienced by women attending breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 60(3). 235–240. 79 indexed citations

Loonen, A.J.M., et al.. (1991). Continuation and maintenance therapy with antidepressive agents. Meta-analysis of research.. PubMed. 13(4). 167–75. 9 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.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact