MYCOBACTERIA: LABORATORY METHODS FOR TESTING DRUG SENSITIVITY AND RESISTANCE.
- Journal
- PubMed
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w70630463 →Countries where authors are citing MYCOBACTERIA: LABORATORY METHODS FOR TESTING DRUG SENSITIVITY AND RESISTANCE.
This map shows the geographic impact of MYCOBACTERIA: LABORATORY METHODS FOR TESTING DRUG SENSITIVITY AND RESISTANCE.. 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 MYCOBACTERIA: LABORATORY METHODS FOR TESTING DRUG SENSITIVITY AND RESISTANCE. with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites MYCOBACTERIA: LABORATORY METHODS FOR TESTING DRUG SENSITIVITY AND RESISTANCE. more than expected).
Fields of papers citing MYCOBACTERIA: LABORATORY METHODS FOR TESTING DRUG SENSITIVITY AND RESISTANCE.
This network shows the impact of MYCOBACTERIA: LABORATORY METHODS FOR TESTING DRUG SENSITIVITY AND RESISTANCE.. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the MYCOBACTERIA: LABORATORY METHODS FOR TESTING DRUG SENSITIVITY AND RESISTANCE..
About MYCOBACTERIA: LABORATORY METHODS FOR TESTING DRUG SENSITIVITY AND RESISTANCE.
This paper, published in 1963, received 425 indexed citations . Written by G Canetti, S. Froman, J. Grosset, P Hauduroy, M. Langerová, H Mahler, Gertrud Meißner, D.A. Mitchison and L Sŭla covering the research area of Epidemiology, Pharmacology and Infectious Diseases. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Infectious Diseases (375 citations), Epidemiology (359 citations) and Surgery (144 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/w70630463.