General rules for clinical and pathological studies on cancer of the colon, rectum and anus
- Authors
- Dennosuke Jinnai
- Journal
- Surgery Today
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1007/bf02469505 →Countries where authors are citing General rules for clinical and pathological studies on cancer of the colon, rectum and anus
This map shows the geographic impact of General rules for clinical and pathological studies on cancer of the colon, rectum and anus. 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 General rules for clinical and pathological studies on cancer of the colon, rectum and anus with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites General rules for clinical and pathological studies on cancer of the colon, rectum and anus more than expected).
Fields of papers citing General rules for clinical and pathological studies on cancer of the colon, rectum and anus
This network shows the impact of General rules for clinical and pathological studies on cancer of the colon, rectum and anus. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the General rules for clinical and pathological studies on cancer of the colon, rectum and anus.
About General rules for clinical and pathological studies on cancer of the colon, rectum and anus
This paper, published in 1983, received 540 indexed citations . Written by Dennosuke Jinnai covering the research area of Oncology and Surgery. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Oncology (419 citations), Surgery (227 citations) and Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine (216 citations). Published in Surgery Today.
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/bf02469505.