Report of the Committee on Staging and Classification of Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphomas.
Impact in
- Dermatology 396
Classified as
- Authors
- Bunn Pa
- Journal
- PubMed
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w47019622 →Countries where authors are citing Report of the Committee on Staging and Classification of Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphomas.
This map shows the geographic impact of Report of the Committee on Staging and Classification of Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphomas.. 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 Report of the Committee on Staging and Classification of Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphomas. with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Report of the Committee on Staging and Classification of Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphomas. more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Report of the Committee on Staging and Classification of Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphomas.
This network shows the impact of Report of the Committee on Staging and Classification of Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphomas.. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Report of the Committee on Staging and Classification of Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphomas..
About Report of the Committee on Staging and Classification of Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphomas.
This paper, published in 1979, received 425 indexed citations . Written by Bunn Pa covering the research area of Pathology and Forensic Medicine and Dermatology. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Dermatology (396 citations), Pathology and Forensic Medicine (187 citations), Immunology (148 citations), Epidemiology (88 citations) and Oncology (62 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/w47019622.