What are the most common conditions in primary care? Systematic review.
- Journal
- PubMed
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w47547650 →Countries where authors are citing What are the most common conditions in primary care? Systematic review.
This map shows the geographic impact of What are the most common conditions in primary care? Systematic review.. 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 What are the most common conditions in primary care? Systematic review. with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites What are the most common conditions in primary care? Systematic review. more than expected).
Fields of papers citing What are the most common conditions in primary care? Systematic review.
This network shows the impact of What are the most common conditions in primary care? Systematic review.. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the What are the most common conditions in primary care? Systematic review..
About What are the most common conditions in primary care? Systematic review.
This paper, published in 2018, received 293 indexed citations . Written by Caitlin R Finley, Derek Chan, Scott Garrison, Christina Korownyk, Michael R. Kolber, Sandy Campbell, Dean T. Eurich, Adrienne J. Lindblad, Ben Vandermeer and G. Michael Allan covering the research area of General Health Professions, Epidemiology and Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Pharmacology (64 citations), General Health Professions (61 citations) and Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine (58 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/w47547650.