Countries where authors publish in Urology Practice
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Urology Practice. 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 Urology Practice with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Urology Practice more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Urology Practice. 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 Urology Practice.
About Urology Practice
The 724 papers published in Urology Practice in the last decades have received a total of 2.8k indexed citations . Papers published in Urology Practice usually cover Urology (108 papers), Gender Studies (87 papers) and General Health Professions (160 papers) specifically the topics of Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment (107 papers), Healthcare Policy and Management (85 papers), Diversity and Career in Medicine (84 papers), Bladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments (73 papers), Pelvic floor disorders treatments (67 papers), Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research (58 papers), Urological Disorders and Treatments (58 papers) and Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research (56 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Urology Practice are David W. Schindler, Timothy D. Averch, Amanda North, Bradley A. Erickson, Stacy Loeb, James E. Montie, Christopher Tessier, Werner de Riese, Charles R. Powell and David Daniels.
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.