Medical Laboratory Technology

40.0k papers and 608.5k indexed citations i.

About

40.0k papers covering Medical Laboratory Technology have received a total of 608.5k indexed citations since 1950. Papers on subfields are most often about the specific topic of Quality and Safety in Healthcare, Occupational health in dentistry and Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation and also cover the fields of Pharmacology, Radiological and Ultrasound Technology and Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty. Papers citing papers on subfields are usually about Pharmacology, Oral Surgery and Radiological and Ultrasound Technology. Some of the most active scholars covering Medical Laboratory Technology are James Reason, Ove A. Peters, L L Leape, Nancy Leveson, Robert L. Helmreich, William H. Woodall, Nancy G. Leveson, Lorelei Lingard, Pascale Carayon and Rhona Flin.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers citing papers about Medical Laboratory Technology

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

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

Countries where authors publish papers about Medical Laboratory Technology

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research in Medical Laboratory Technology. 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 about Medical Laboratory Technology with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Medical Laboratory Technology 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 fields with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2025