Practice Guidelines for the Management of Cryptococcal Disease
- Journal
- Clinical Infectious Diseases
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1086/313757 →Countries where authors are citing Practice Guidelines for the Management of Cryptococcal Disease
This map shows the geographic impact of Practice Guidelines for the Management of Cryptococcal Disease. 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 Practice Guidelines for the Management of Cryptococcal Disease with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Practice Guidelines for the Management of Cryptococcal Disease more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Practice Guidelines for the Management of Cryptococcal Disease
This network shows the impact of Practice Guidelines for the Management of Cryptococcal Disease. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Practice Guidelines for the Management of Cryptococcal Disease.
About Practice Guidelines for the Management of Cryptococcal Disease
This paper, published in 2000, received 781 indexed citations . Written by M. S. Saag, Robert A. Larsen, P. G. Pappas, John R. Perfect, William G. Powderly, Jack D. Sobel and William E. Dismukes covering the research area of Epidemiology and Infectious Diseases. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Epidemiology (733 citations), Infectious Diseases (684 citations) and Surgery (36 citations). Published in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
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/10.1086/313757.