Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function - part 1.
- Journal
- PubMed
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w20545574 →Countries where authors are citing Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function - part 1.
This map shows the geographic impact of Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function - part 1.. 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 Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function - part 1. with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function - part 1. more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function - part 1.
This network shows the impact of Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function - part 1.. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function - part 1..
About Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function - part 1.
This paper, published in 2014, received 314 indexed citations . Written by Gray Cook, Lee Burton, Barbara J. Hoogenboom and Michael Voight covering the research area of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine and Surgery. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Orthopedics and Sports Medicine (227 citations), Surgery (86 citations) and Biomedical Engineering (57 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/w20545574.