PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews
Impact in
- Surgery 86
Classified as
- Authors
- Kath Wright
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w48809556 →Countries where authors are citing PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews
This map shows the geographic impact of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. 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 PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews more than expected).
Fields of papers citing PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews
This network shows the impact of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews.
About PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews
This paper, published in 2014, received 450 indexed citations . Written by Kath Wright covering the research area of Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty, Sociology and Political Science and Surgery. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Surgery (86 citations), Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health (79 citations), General Health Professions (66 citations), Epidemiology (61 citations) and Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine (53 citations).
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/w48809556.