The volume-outcome relationship: practice-makes-perfect or selective-referral patterns?
- Journal
- PubMed
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w85992057 →Countries where authors are citing The volume-outcome relationship: practice-makes-perfect or selective-referral patterns?
This map shows the geographic impact of The volume-outcome relationship: practice-makes-perfect or selective-referral patterns?. 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 The volume-outcome relationship: practice-makes-perfect or selective-referral patterns? with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites The volume-outcome relationship: practice-makes-perfect or selective-referral patterns? more than expected).
Fields of papers citing The volume-outcome relationship: practice-makes-perfect or selective-referral patterns?
This network shows the impact of The volume-outcome relationship: practice-makes-perfect or selective-referral patterns?. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the The volume-outcome relationship: practice-makes-perfect or selective-referral patterns?.
About The volume-outcome relationship: practice-makes-perfect or selective-referral patterns?
This paper, published in 1987, received 472 indexed citations . Written by Harold S. Luft, Sandra Hunt and Susan Maerki covering the research area of General Health Professions and Economics and Econometrics. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Surgery (163 citations), Economics and Econometrics (157 citations) and Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine (117 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/w85992057.