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.
Using Pedometers to Increase Physical Activity and Improve Health
20071.6k citationsDena M Bravata, Crystal Smith-Spangler et al.JAMAprofile →
Main predictions of the interpersonal–psychological theory of suicidal behavior: Empirical tests in two samples of young adults.
2009597 citationsThomas E. Joiner, Kimberly A. Van Orden et al.Journal of Abnormal Psychologyprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Robyn Lewis'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 Robyn Lewis with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Robyn Lewis more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Robyn Lewis. 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 Robyn Lewis. The network helps show where Robyn Lewis may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Robyn Lewis
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Robyn Lewis.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Robyn Lewis 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 Robyn Lewis. Robyn Lewis is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Joiner, Thomas E., Kimberly A. Van Orden, Tracy K. Witte, et al.. (2009). Main predictions of the interpersonal–psychological theory of suicidal behavior: Empirical tests in two samples of young adults.. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 118(3). 634–646.597 indexed citations breakdown →
Bravata, Dena M, Crystal Smith-Spangler, Vandana Sundaram, et al.. (2007). Using Pedometers to Increase Physical Activity and Improve Health. JAMA. 298(19). 2296–2296.1636 indexed citations breakdown →
8.
Bravata, Dena M, Vandana Sundaram, Robyn Lewis, et al.. (2007). Data Abstraction Forms.1 indexed citations
9.
McDonald, Kathryn M, Vandana Sundaram, Dena M Bravata, et al.. (2007). Definitions of Care Coordination and Related Terms.9 indexed citations
10.
McDonald, Kathryn M, Vandana Sundaram, Dena M Bravata, et al.. (2007). Conceptual Frameworks and Their Application to Evaluating Care Coordination Interventions.6 indexed citations
McDonald, Kathryn M, Vandana Sundaram, Dena M Bravata, et al.. (2007). Table 6, Components of care coordination.1 indexed citations
13.
Ranji, Sumant R, et al.. (2007). Closing the Quality Gap: A Critical Analysis of Quality Improvement Strategies (Vol. 6: Prevention of Healthcare–Associated Infections).23 indexed citations
14.
Bravata, Dena M, Vandana Sundaram, Robyn Lewis, et al.. (2007). [Figure], Figure 9. Funnel plot: asthma-related ED/urgent care visits.1 indexed citations
Ranji, Sumant R, Michael A. Steinman, Kaveh G Shojania, et al.. (2006). Closing the Quality Gap: A Critical Analysis of Quality Improvement Strategies (Vol. 4: Antibiotic Prescribing Behavior).13 indexed citations
17.
Bravata, Dena M, Robyn Lewis, Paul H. Wise, et al.. (2006). Pediatric anthrax: implications for bioterrorism preparedness.. PubMed. 1–48.6 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.