Anthropometric Reference Data for Children and Adults: United States, 2011-2014.
Impact in
- Physiology 48
- Journal
- PubMed
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w4600606 →Countries where authors are citing Anthropometric Reference Data for Children and Adults: United States, 2011-2014.
This map shows the geographic impact of Anthropometric Reference Data for Children and Adults: United States, 2011-2014.. 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 Anthropometric Reference Data for Children and Adults: United States, 2011-2014. with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Anthropometric Reference Data for Children and Adults: United States, 2011-2014. more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Anthropometric Reference Data for Children and Adults: United States, 2011-2014.
This network shows the impact of Anthropometric Reference Data for Children and Adults: United States, 2011-2014.. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Anthropometric Reference Data for Children and Adults: United States, 2011-2014..
About Anthropometric Reference Data for Children and Adults: United States, 2011-2014.
This paper, published in 2016, received 295 indexed citations . Written by Cheryl D. Fryar, Qiuping Gu, Cynthia L. Ogden and Katherine M. Flegal. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health (75 citations), Physiology (48 citations), General Health Professions (36 citations), Orthopedics and Sports Medicine (34 citations) and Surgery (31 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/w4600606.