Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
- Journal
- PubMed
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w88670776 →Countries where authors are citing Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
This map shows the geographic impact of Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.. 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 Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
This network shows the impact of Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement..
About Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
This paper, published in 2009, received 43.1k indexed citations . Written by David Moher, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff and Douglas G. Altman covering the research area of General Health Professions and Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Surgery (8.0k citations), Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health (5.7k citations) and Epidemiology (5.6k 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/w88670776.