Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists.
Impact in
Classified as
- Authors
- J McEwenS. P. McKenna
- Journal
- PubMed
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w64115984 →Countries where authors are citing Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists.
This map shows the geographic impact of Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists.. 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 Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists. with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists. more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists.
This network shows the impact of Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists.. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists..
About Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists.
This paper, published in 1985, received 668 indexed citations . Written by J McEwen and S. P. McKenna covering the research area of General Health Professions, Health and Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Economics and Econometrics (132 citations), General Health Professions (129 citations), Surgery (119 citations), Psychiatry and Mental health (90 citations) and Epidemiology (89 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/w64115984.