Comparability of cause of death between ICD-9 and ICD-10: preliminary estimates.
- Journal
- PubMed
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w70023155 →Countries where authors are citing Comparability of cause of death between ICD-9 and ICD-10: preliminary estimates.
This map shows the geographic impact of Comparability of cause of death between ICD-9 and ICD-10: preliminary estimates.. 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 Comparability of cause of death between ICD-9 and ICD-10: preliminary estimates. with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Comparability of cause of death between ICD-9 and ICD-10: preliminary estimates. more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Comparability of cause of death between ICD-9 and ICD-10: preliminary estimates.
This network shows the impact of Comparability of cause of death between ICD-9 and ICD-10: preliminary estimates.. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Comparability of cause of death between ICD-9 and ICD-10: preliminary estimates..
About Comparability of cause of death between ICD-9 and ICD-10: preliminary estimates.
This paper, published in 2001, received 536 indexed citations . Written by Robert N. Anderson, Arialdi Miniño, Donna L. Hoyert and H. M. Rosenberg covering the research area of Health Information Management and Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Health (143 citations), General Health Professions (133 citations) and Epidemiology (110 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/w70023155.