Views of Practicing Physicians and the Public on Medical Errors

587 indexed citations

Abstract

loading...

About

This paper, published in 2002, received 587 indexed citations. Written by Robert J. Blendon, Catherine M. DesRoches, Mollyann Brodie, John M. Benson, Allison B. Rosen, Eric C. Schneider, Drew E. Altman, Kinga Zapert and Melissa J. Herrmann covering the research area of Emergency Medical Services, Health Information Management and Pharmacy. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Emergency Medical Services (419 citations), Pharmacy (353 citations) and Health Information Management (170 citations). Published in New England Journal of Medicine.

Countries where authors are citing Views of Practicing Physicians and the Public on Medical Errors

Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Views of Practicing Physicians and the Public on Medical Errors. 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 Views of Practicing Physicians and the Public on Medical Errors with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Views of Practicing Physicians and the Public on Medical Errors more than expected).

Fields of papers citing Views of Practicing Physicians and the Public on Medical Errors

Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of Views of Practicing Physicians and the Public on Medical Errors. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Views of Practicing Physicians and the Public on Medical Errors.

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/10.1056/nejmsa022151.

Explore hit-papers with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2026