Primary cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer.
Impact in
- Surgery 140
Classified as
- Journal
- PubMed
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w1599617931 →Countries where authors are citing Primary cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer.
This map shows the geographic impact of Primary cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer.. 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 Primary cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer. with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Primary cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer. more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Primary cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer.
This network shows the impact of Primary cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer.. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Primary cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer..
About Primary cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer.
This paper, published in 1983, received 370 indexed citations . Written by Neville F. Hacker, Jonathan S. Berek, Leo D. Lagasse, Roberta K. Nieberg and Robert M. Elashoff covering the research area of Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, Surgery and Reproductive Medicine. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Reproductive Medicine (310 citations), Surgery (140 citations), Obstetrics and Gynecology (84 citations), Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine (41 citations) and Oncology (34 citations). Published in PubMed.
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/w1599617931.