Pieter Wolters
- Pharmacology top 1%
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health top 10%
- Pathology and Forensic Medicine top 10%
- Cognitive Neuroscience top 10%
- Psychiatry and Mental health top 10%
- Co-authors
- Johan W.S. VlaeyenRaymond OsteloSuzanne G. M. Stomp‐van den BergRuud HoubenMadelon L. PetersHenrica C. W. de VetPiet A. van den BrandtRob A. de Bie
- Topics
- Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation (9 papers)Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology (6 papers)Pregnancy-related medical research (3 papers)
- Partner nations
- NetherlandsAustraliaNew Zealand
In The Last Decade
Pieter Wolters
11 papers receiving 677 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 62
- Pharmacology 587
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health 178
- Pathology and Forensic Medicine 137
- Cognitive Neuroscience 125
- Psychiatry and Mental health 122
Countries citing papers authored by Pieter Wolters
This map shows the geographic impact of Pieter Wolters'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 Pieter Wolters with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Pieter Wolters more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Pieter Wolters
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Pieter Wolters. 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 Pieter Wolters. The network helps show where Pieter Wolters may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Pieter Wolters
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Pieter Wolters. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Pieter Wolters 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 Pieter Wolters. Pieter Wolters is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
| # | Work | Indexed citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Regels over de werking van de redelijkheid en billijkheid? Een analyse van de rechtspraak van de Hoge Raad | 1 |
| 2 | 39 | |
| 3 | 26 | |
| 4 | 39 | |
| 5 | 0 | |
| 6 | 208 | |
| 7 | 14 | |
| 8 | 163 | |
| 9 | 37 | |
| 10 | 112 | |
| 11 | 58 | |
| 12 | 5 |
About Pieter Wolters
Pieter Wolters is a scholar working on Pharmacology, Pathology and Forensic Medicine and Occupational Therapy, having authored 12 papers that have together received 702 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation (9 papers), Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology (6 papers) and Pregnancy-related medical research (3 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Pharmacology (587 citations), Occupational Therapy (92 citations) and Complementary and alternative medicine (81 citations). Pieter Wolters has collaborated with scholars based in Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand. Frequent co-authors include Johan W.S. Vlaeyen, Raymond Ostelo, Suzanne G. M. Stomp‐van den Berg, Ruud Houben, Madelon L. Peters, Henrica C. W. de Vet, Piet A. van den Brandt, Rob A. de Bie, Caroline HG Bastiaenen and G.G.M. Essed. Their work appears in journals such as Spine, BMC Public Health and European Spine Journal.
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.