Conversational Agents in Health Care: Scoping Review and Conceptual Analysis
Countries where authors are citing Conversational Agents in Health Care: Scoping Review and Conceptual Analysis
This map shows the geographic impact of Conversational Agents in Health Care: Scoping Review and Conceptual Analysis. 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 Conversational Agents in Health Care: Scoping Review and Conceptual Analysis with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Conversational Agents in Health Care: Scoping Review and Conceptual Analysis more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Conversational Agents in Health Care: Scoping Review and Conceptual Analysis
This network shows the impact of Conversational Agents in Health Care: Scoping Review and Conceptual Analysis. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Conversational Agents in Health Care: Scoping Review and Conceptual Analysis.
About Conversational Agents in Health Care: Scoping Review and Conceptual Analysis
This paper, published in 2020, received 314 indexed citations . Written by Lorainne Tudor Car, Dhakshenya Ardhithy Dhinagaran, Bhone Myint Kyaw, Tobias Kowatsch, Shafiq Joty, Yin Leng Theng and Rifat Atun covering the research area of General Health Professions, Health and Applied Psychology. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Applied Psychology (172 citations), Artificial Intelligence (124 citations) and General Health Professions (114 citations). Published in Journal of Medical Internet Research.
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/10.2196/17158.