Health Technology Assessment

1.5k papers and 111.2k indexed citations i.

About

The 1.5k papers published in Health Technology Assessment in the last decades have received a total of 111.2k indexed citations. Papers published in Health Technology Assessment usually cover Surgery (289 papers), Epidemiology (253 papers) and Economics and Econometrics (219 papers) specifically the topics of Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life (199 papers), Healthcare cost, quality, practices (43 papers) and Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes (42 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Health Technology Assessment are Jonathan J Deeks, Jacqueline Dinnes, Norman Waugh, Mark Sculpher, Amanda Sowden, Emma Loveman, Luke Vale, Cynthia Fraser, A Fry-Smith and Andrew Clegg.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in Health Technology Assessment

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Health Technology Assessment. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers published in Health Technology Assessment.

Countries where authors publish in Health Technology Assessment

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Health Technology Assessment. 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 papers published in Health Technology Assessment with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Health Technology Assessment more than expected).

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.

Explore journals with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2025