International Consensus Report on Diagnosis and Treatment of Asthma.
Impact in
- Physiology 419
- Journal
- PubMed
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w92067898 →Countries where authors are citing International Consensus Report on Diagnosis and Treatment of Asthma.
This map shows the geographic impact of International Consensus Report on Diagnosis and Treatment of Asthma.. 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 International Consensus Report on Diagnosis and Treatment of Asthma. with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites International Consensus Report on Diagnosis and Treatment of Asthma. more than expected).
Fields of papers citing International Consensus Report on Diagnosis and Treatment of Asthma.
This network shows the impact of International Consensus Report on Diagnosis and Treatment of Asthma.. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the International Consensus Report on Diagnosis and Treatment of Asthma..
About International Consensus Report on Diagnosis and Treatment of Asthma.
This paper, published in 1992, received 570 indexed citations . Written by Jean Bousquet, WW Busse, Rebecca M. Dahl, David Evans, Leonardo M. Fabbri, F.E. Hargreave, ST Holgate, H Magnussen, Partridge and Romain Pauwels. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Physiology (419 citations), Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine (276 citations), Immunology and Allergy (56 citations), Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health (32 citations) and Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health (26 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/w92067898.