Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England · 1×
×2.362k/27kSURGE
×1.14k/4kEM
×0.97k/8kPRM
×1.52k/1kOSM
×1.11k/1kUROLO
Citations per year
'16
'17
'18
'19
'20
'21
'22
'23
'24
'25
'26
Countries where authors publish in Hernia
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Hernia. 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 Hernia with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Hernia more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Hernia. 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 Hernia.
About Hernia
The 3.7k papers published in Hernia in the last decades have received a total of 70.4k indexed citations . Papers published in Hernia usually cover Surgery (3.2k papers), Emergency Medicine (108 papers), Gastroenterology (57 papers), Urology (59 papers) and Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine (270 papers) specifically the topics of Hernia repair and management (2.8k papers), Pelvic and Acetabular Injuries (537 papers), Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Studies (291 papers), Intestinal and Peritoneal Adhesions (228 papers), Abdominal Surgery and Complications (200 papers), Stoma care and complications (191 papers), Appendicitis Diagnosis and Management (107 papers) and Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques (81 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Hernia are P. K. Amid, Jacob Rosenberg, U. Klinge, Karl A. LeBlanc, V. Schumpelick, Giampiero Campanelli, Henrik Kehlet, Salvador Morales‐Conde, Morten Bay‐Nielsen and Andrew N. Kingsnorth.
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.