Recommendations for Surveillance of Clostridium difficile–Associated Disease
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1086/511798 →Countries where authors are citing Recommendations for Surveillance of Clostridium difficile–Associated Disease
This map shows the geographic impact of Recommendations for Surveillance of Clostridium difficile–Associated 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 Recommendations for Surveillance of Clostridium difficile–Associated Disease with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Recommendations for Surveillance of Clostridium difficile–Associated Disease more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Recommendations for Surveillance of Clostridium difficile–Associated Disease
This network shows the impact of Recommendations for Surveillance of Clostridium difficile–Associated Disease. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Recommendations for Surveillance of Clostridium difficile–Associated Disease.
About Recommendations for Surveillance of Clostridium difficile–Associated Disease
This paper, published in 2007, received 487 indexed citations . Written by L. Clifford McDonald, B. Coignard, Erik R. Dubberke, Xiaoyan Song, Teresa Horan and Preeta K. Kutty covering the research area of Epidemiology, Surgery and Infectious Diseases. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Infectious Diseases (475 citations), Epidemiology (381 citations) and Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine (182 citations). Published in Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology.
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/10.1086/511798.