Consensus statement on the diagnosis of multiple system atrophy

Abstract

loading...

About

This paper, published in 1950, received 1.1k indexed citations. Written by Sid Gilman, Phillip A. Low, Niall Quinn, Alberto Albanese, Yoav Ben‐Shlomo, Clare J. Fowler, Horacio Kaufmann, Thomas Klockgether, Anthony E. Lang and P. L. Lantos covering the research area of Neurology, Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience and Molecular Biology. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Neurology (936 citations), Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience (442 citations) and Neurology (196 citations). Published in Clinical Autonomic Research.

Countries where authors are citing Consensus statement on the diagnosis of multiple system atrophy

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Consensus statement on the diagnosis of multiple system atrophy. 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 Consensus statement on the diagnosis of multiple system atrophy with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Consensus statement on the diagnosis of multiple system atrophy more than expected).

Fields of papers citing Consensus statement on the diagnosis of multiple system atrophy

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of Consensus statement on the diagnosis of multiple system atrophy. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Consensus statement on the diagnosis of multiple system atrophy.

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.

This paper is also available at doi.org/10.1007/bf02309628.

Explore hit-papers with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2026