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.
Effect of a surgical training programme on outcome of rectal cancer in the County of Stockholm
2000602 citationsAnna Martling, T. Holm et al.The Lancetprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of RJ Heald'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 RJ Heald with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites RJ Heald more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by RJ Heald. 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 RJ Heald. The network helps show where RJ Heald may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of RJ Heald
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of RJ Heald.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of RJ Heald 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 RJ Heald. RJ Heald is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
15 of 15 papers shown
1.
How, Peter, BJ Moran, Sigmar Stelzner, et al.. (2016). The MERCURY II Study: Prospective Validation of a Low Rectal Cancer Assessment System Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Development of a Local Recurrence Risk Stratification Model. White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York).1 indexed citations
Martling, Anna, et al.. (2000). Effect of a surgical training programme on outcome of rectal cancer in the County of Stockholm. The Lancet. 356(9224). 93–96.602 indexed citations breakdown →
Smedh, Kenneth, et al.. (1997). Fixed rectal cancer at laparatomy: a simple operation to protect the small bowel from radiation enteritis.. PubMed. 163(7). 547–8.4 indexed citations
Heald, RJ, et al.. (1990). Achievement of stomal continence in one-third of colostomies by use of a new disposable plug.. PubMed. 170(5). 390–4.9 indexed citations
12.
Heald, RJ, et al.. (1990). Operative and functional results of total mesorectal excision with ultra-low anterior resection in the management of carcinoma of the lower one-third of the rectum.. PubMed. 170(6). 517–21.86 indexed citations
13.
Tyler, Ronald D., Charles W. Qualls, RJ Heald, Rick L. Cowell, & Kenneth D. Clinkenbeard. (1987). Renal concentrating ability in dehydrated hyponatremic dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 191(9). 1095–1100.11 indexed citations
14.
Heald, RJ. (1979). A new approach to rectal cancer.. PubMed. 22(3). 277–81.204 indexed citations
15.
Heald, RJ. (1977). Causes of delay in the diagnosis of cancer of the rectum and colon.. PubMed. 219(1311). 339–42.6 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.