Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
SCImago
Q2
WOS
Q3
Impact factor
2.1
SJR
0.572
CiteScore
5.2
Categories
Clinical Biochemistry
Areas
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Years of issue
2007-2025
journal names
Proteomics - Clinical Applications
PROTEOM CLIN APPL
Top-3 citing journals

Proteomics - Clinical Applications
(1130 citations)

Proteomics
(790 citations)

International Journal of Molecular Sciences
(770 citations)
Top-3 organizations

Johns Hopkins University
(50 publications)

University of Glasgow
(24 publications)

University of Sydney
(24 publications)

Karolinska Institute
(5 publications)

Shanghai Jiao Tong University
(5 publications)

University of Sydney
(5 publications)
Most cited in 5 years
Found
Publications found: 947
Q1

Psychometric assessment of the Moroccan version of the car, relax, alone, forget, friends, trouble (CRAFFT) scale among adolescent and young adults with a substance use disorder
El Malki H., El-Ammari A., Moutawakkil S.G., Elgnaoui S., Houari F.E., Rhazi K.E., Zarrouq B.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble (CRAFFT) scale is a widely used screening tool for early identification of alcohol and other drug use, and assessing the risk of substance use disorders in adolescents and young adults. Despite its broad use, translation into several languages, and validation in various settings, no study has yet confirmed the psychometric properties of a Moroccan version. The present research aims to adapt and validate the Moroccan Arabic dialect version of the CRAFFT scale among adolescents and young adults with alcohol and drug use disorder.
Methods
A total of 302 adolescents and young adults (mean age = 18.36 ± 2.36), including 161 males and 41 females, were recruited from a substance use treatment center in Fez City. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to assess the factorial structure and model fit, while internal consistency was evaluated using the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20). Convergent validity was examined using gold standard measures, including the International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) and the Hooked-on Nicotine Checklist (HONC). All statistical analyses were performed using JASP software (version 0.17).
Results
CFA revealed a one-factor structure with a good overall fit (χ²/df = 1.91, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.06, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = 0.03, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.98, Normed Fit Index (NFI) = 0.97. The model had strong reliability with a KR-20 coefficient of 0.80. Convergent validity was confirmed by a high and significant correlation with the MINI gold standard (r = 0.82, p < 0.001), while a low correlation with the HONC gold standard (r = 0.20, p < 0.001) confirmed the scale’s convergent validity. A cutoff score of 4 or higher on the CRAFFT was identified as optimal for balancing sensitivity (78.35%) and specificity (91.67%), achieving a Youden index of 0.70.
Conclusion
The psychometric properties of the Moroccan version of the CRAFFT confirm that it is a valid tool for screening the early detection of alcohol and drug use and for assessing the risk of substance use disorders in adolescents and young adults.
Q1

Organizational perspectives on the impacts of scaling up overdose education and naloxone distribution in Kentucky
Knudsen H.K., Back-Haddix S., Andrews-Higgins S., Goetz M., Davis O.A., Oyler D.R., Walsh S.L., Freeman P.R.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Efforts to scale up overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND), an evidence-based practice for reducing opioid overdose mortality, was a major focus of the HEALing Communities Study (HCS). The aim of this analysis is to describe the qualitative perspectives of partner organizations regarding the impacts of implementing OEND in a state that used a naloxone “hub with many spokes” model for scaling up this strategy.
Methods
Small group (n = 20) and individual (n = 24) qualitative interviews were conducted with staff from 44 agencies in eight Kentucky counties that implemented OEND from April 2020 to June 2022. Interviews were conducted between 6 and 8 months after the end of the intervention. Initial deductive coding used the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, and then additional inductive sub-coding focused on passages within the OEND Effectiveness code. Thematic analysis was then utilized to identify themes regarding the impacts of implementing OEND.
Results
Participants identified multi-level impacts of implementing OEND. At the individual-level, participants described lives being saved, greater access to naloxone for individuals served by the agency, reduced stigma toward OEND by clients, and greater client-level self-efficacy to respond to overdoses. Organizational impacts included improved staff readiness for overdose response, enhanced clinical relationships between staff and clients, and reduced staff stigma. Participants described positive impacts on their organizational networks and clients’ social networks. Community-level impacts included greater overall access and reduced stigma toward OEND.
Conclusions
These qualitative data revealed that staff from agencies involved in a community-wide effort to scale up OEND perceived multi-level benefits, including saving lives, reducing stigma, improving naloxone access, and enhancing staff and client readiness, while strengthening organizational and community networks.
Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04111939. Registered 30 September 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04111939
Q1

What smartphone apps exist to support recovery from opioid use disorder? A content analysis of publicly available opioid-related smartphone apps
Williamson A., Heydarshahi B., Finley-Abboud D., Massac L., Jacobson L., Christophe N., Joseph J., Futter A., Hoeppner S.S., Hoeppner B.B.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Background
An estimated 84,181 people died due to opioid overdose in 2022 alone [1]. Mobile technologies may offer an additional pathway to provide support to people seeking recovery from opioid use disorder (OUD). To this end, we conducted a content analysis of opioid-related apps to determine to what extent apps exist that provide support to people seeking or in recovery from OUD. For apps specifically targeting OUD recovery, we identified the tools these apps offer to users seeking support in their recovery.
Methods
Our team conducted a content analysis of publicly available opioid-related apps identified via web-scraping in the Apple and Google app stores. Using a two-step qualitative coding process, we first identified which apps were meaningfully related to OUD recovery and second identified what tools, if any, these apps provided.
Results
Web-scraping identified 1,136 apps from the Apple App Store (n = 247) and Google Play (n = 889). Of those, 290 apps were specific to OUD recovery (65% of iOS apps, 35% of Android apps). Of those, 161 apps were included in our final analysis. The most common type of tools provided support for motivation (65.2%) and accountability (65.8%). Many apps (53%) also supported linkage to recovery support (e.g., meeting finder, telehealth). Surprisingly, fewer apps provided information about OUD recovery (43.5%) or tools for cravings (33.5%). 42.9% of apps had limited accessibility (e.g., paywalls, private invite).
Conclusions
Our results show a substantial increase in the number of apps designed to support OUD recovery. Nevertheless, there remains a need for apps that provide empirically supported information and tools. Furthermore, restrictions in accessibility (i.e., findability, cost, private) may limit the impact of available apps.
Q1

Lessons from the National institutes of health innovation corps program: defining barriers to developing and commercializing novel solutions for persons with opioid use disorder
Heshmatipour M.P., Duvernay T.M., Hite D.Z., Versi E., Hite M.P., Reeser D.F., Prikhodko V., Nelson A.M., Julian B., Greenberg M.L.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Translating innovative research advancements into commercially viable medical interventions presents well-known challenges. However, there is limited understanding of how specific patient, clinical, social, and legal complexities have further complicated and delayed the development of new and effective interventions for Opioid Use Disorder (OUD). We present the following case studies to provide introductory clinical, social, and business insights for researchers, medical professionals, and entrepreneurs who are considering or are currently developing medical.
Methods
Four small business recipients of National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) small business grant funding collected a total of 416 customer discovery interviews during the 2021 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Innovation-Corps (I-Corps) program. Each business received funding to advance an OUD-specific innovation: therapeutics (2 companies), medical device (1 company), and Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) (1 company). Interview participants included stakeholders from a variety of disciplines of Substance Use Disorders (SUD) healthcare including clinicians, first responders, policymakers, relevant manufacturers, business partners, advocacy groups, regulatory agencies, and insurance companies.
Results
Agnostic to the type of product (therapeutic, device, or SaMD), several shared barriers were identified: (1) There is a lack of standardization across medical providers for managing patients with OUD, resulting in diverse implementation practices due to a fragmented healthcare policy; (2) Underlying Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) present unique challenges to medical care and contribute to poor outcomes in OUD; (3) Stigma thwarts adoption, implementation, and the development of innovative solutions; (4) Constantly evolving public health trends and legal policies impact development and access to OUD interventions.
Conclusion
It is critical for innovators to have early interactions with the full range of OUD stakeholders to identify and quantify true unmet needs and to properly position development programs for commercial success. The NIH I-Corps program provides a framework to educate researchers to support their product design and development plans to increase the probability of a commercially successful outcome to address the ongoing opioid epidemic.
Q1

Correction: Buprenorphine and postpartum contraception utilization among people with opioid use disorder: a multi-state analysis
Xu K.Y., Bello J.K., Buss J., Jones H.E., Bierut L.J., Stwalley D., Szlyk H.S., Martin C.E., Kelly J.C., Carter E.B., Krans E.E., Grucza R.A.
Q1

“It’s within your own power”: shared decision-making to support transitions to buprenorphine
Williams B.E., Martin S.A., Hoffman K.A., Andrus M.D., Dellabough-Gormley E., Buchheit B.M.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
Buprenorphine is an effective first-line treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) that substantially reduces morbidity and mortality. For patients using illicitly-manufactured fentanyl (IMF), however, transitioning to buprenorphine can be challenging. Evidence is lacking for how best to make this transition in the outpatient setting. A shared decision-making (SDM) approach has been found to benefit patients with OUD but has not been studied for buprenorphine initiation. We sought to explore participants’ experiences with a SDM approach to buprenorphine initiation.
Methods
Participants were seeking care at a low barrier, telehealth buprenorphine clinic. Clinicians implemented a standardized SDM approach whereby they offered patients using IMF three options for buprenorphine initiation (traditional, low-dose, and QuickStart). They elicited patient goals and preferences and discussed the pros and cons of each method to come to a shared decision. Patients meeting study criteria were invited to participate in semi-structured qualitative interviews 1–2 weeks after the initial visit. Interviews focused on experiences with the clinical visit, suggestions for enhancing the treatment experience, and patient factors affecting the method they chose. Interviews were coded and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.
Results
Twenty participants completed interviews. Participants’ mean age was 33, they were 50% female, predominantly white (16 [80%]), and most had Medicaid insurance (19 [95%]). We identified three important themes. First, participants found SDM acceptable and a positive addition to their OUD treatment. They felt their opinion mattered and reported that SDM gave them important control over their care plan. Second, patient goals, preferences, and past experiences with buprenorphine-associated withdrawal impacted what type of buprenorphine initiation method they chose. Finally, participants had advice for clinicians to improve SDM counseling. Participant recommendations included ensuring patients are informed that withdrawal (or “feeling sick”) can occur with any initiation method, that buprenorphine will eventually “block” fentanyl effects once at a high enough dose, and that clinicians provide specific advice for tapering off fentanyl during a low dose initiation.
Conclusions
For patients with OUD using IMF, shared decision-making is an acceptable approach to buprenorphine initiation in the outpatient setting. It can enhance patient autonomy and lead to an individualized approach to OUD care.
Q1

An investigation of drug use among first-time arrestees from 25 county jails across the United States in 2023
Schumacher J.E., Ahsan A., Simpler A.H., Natoli A.P., Cain B.J.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Conducting research within a carceral health care context offers a unique view into the nature of drug use among arrestees with potential to identify and prevent drug use consequences. The purpose of this study was to characterize the nature and extent of drug use among first-time jail arrestees to inform detection and treatment.
Methods
This study utilized a naturalistic research design to collect de-identified urine drug screens (UDS), jail characteristics, and arrestee demographic variables among arrestees indicating drug use from 25 jails across the United States in 2023 through a confidential data sharing agreement with NaphCare, Inc. using its proprietary electronic health record operating system. Descriptive statistics were used to detail the features of the dataset, Pearson’s chi-square tests of independence were performed to statistically analyze associations between UDS results and jail characteristics and arrestee demographics, and significant chi-square test results were further investigated by examining standardized residuals to clarify the nature and significance of within-group differences in proportions.
Results
Of the 43,553 UDS cases comprising the final sample (28.8% of total arrestees), 74.8% (32,561) were positive for one or more drugs, and 25.2% of UDS cases were negative for all drugs. Among those who tested positive, 69.0% were positive for cannabis, 54.8% for stimulants, 29.6% for opioids, and 12.4% for sedatives. Arrestees were positive for multiple drugs half the time, with combinations of cannabis, stimulants, and opioids most common. Significant associations between drug use and both jail characteristics and arrestee demographics were found.
Conclusions
Though drug use is not a recent phenomenon, the lethality potential of the drugs being used today is relatively new. Arrestees with positive urine drug screens are at heightened risk of adverse outcome due to sudden cessation of substance use. Findings highlight the need for objective clinical data to guide acute treatment of individuals at risk of withdrawing while detained.
Q1

Patient and clinician experiences with the implementation of telemedicine and related adaptations in office-based buprenorphine treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study
Davoust M., Bazzi A.R., Blakemore S., Blodgett J., Cheng A., Fielman S., Magane K.M., Theisen J., Saitz R., Ventura A.S., Weinstein Z.M.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Deaths from opioid overdose have increased dramatically in the past decade. For individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD), agonist medications such as methadone and buprenorphine reduce opioid-related morbidity and mortality. Historically, the provision of buprenorphine treatment in office-based settings has relied on frequent in-person contact, likely influencing patients’ access to and retention in care. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, providers of office-based buprenorphine treatment rapidly adapted their care processes, increasingly relying on telemedicine visits. To date, relatively few prior studies have combined patient and clinician perspectives to examine the implementation of telemedicine and related care adaptations, particularly in safety-net settings.
Methods
Qualitative methods were used to explore clinician and patient experiences with telemedicine in an office-based buprenorphine treatment clinic affiliated with an urban safety-net hospital. From this clinic, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 25 patients and 16 clinicians (including prescribers and non-prescribers). We coded all interview data and used a thematic analysis approach to understand how telemedicine impacted treatment quality and engagement in care, as well as preferences for using telemedicine moving forward.
Results
Five themes regarding the implementation of telemedicine and other COVID-19-related care adaptations arose from patient and clinician perspectives: (1) telemedicine integration precipitated openness to more flexibility in care practices, (2) concerns regarding telemedicine-related adaptations centered around safety and accountability, (3) telemedicine encounters required rapport and trust between patients and clinicians to facilitate open communication, (4) safety-net patient populations experienced unique challenges when using telemedicine, particularly in terms of the technology required and the need for privacy, and (5) there is an important role for telemedicine in office-based buprenorphine treatment moving forward, primarily through its use in hybrid models of care which integrate both in-person and virtual visits.
Conclusions
Telemedicine implementation within office-based buprenorphine treatment has the potential to improve patients’ engagement in care; however, our findings emphasize the need for tailored approaches to implementing telemedicine in office-based buprenorphine treatment, particularly within safety-net settings. Overall, this study supports the maintenance of changes to policy and practice that facilitate the use of telemedicine in office-based buprenorphine treatment beyond the COVID-19 public health emergency.
Q1

Is it about substituting an addiction with another? development and initial psychometric properties of the first heated tobacco products addiction questionnaire (HeaTPAQ)
Fekih-Romdhane F., Hallit R., Malaeb D., Sakr F., Dabbous M., Obeid S., Hallit S.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Public health experts currently agree that heated tobacco products (HTPs) pose a significant health risk for their consumers. The same concentrations and speed of delivery of nicotine found for HTPs and conventional combustion cigarettes make it necessary to consider the addictiveness of HTPs, and provide precise diagnostic instruments to serve as the basis for effective treatment plans. Therefore, the main objectives of this study were to design a questionnaire for HTPs addiction called “Heated Tobacco Products Addiction Questionnaire (HeaTPAQ)” and to examine its psychometric properties.
Methods
Adults from the general population of Lebanon (n = 754) were administered the HeatPAQ, along with the Fagerström test for nicotine dependence (FTND), the Caffeine Use Disorder Questionnaire, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item, and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We split the main sample into two subsamples; subsample 1 consisting of 33% of the participants used for the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) (n = 246; mean age 27.82 ± 9.38 years) and subsample 2 consisting of 67% of the participants used for the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (n = 508; mean age 27.81 ± 8.80 years).
Results
EFA then CFA analyses revealed a one-factor model consisting of 13 items with acceptable fit to the data. The HeaTPAQ reached excellent internal consistency coefficients, with both Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω values of 0.96. The one-dimensional structure of the HeaTPAQ was found to be invariant across sex groups. Convergent validity was demonstrated through significant positive correlation with FTND scores. Furthermore, HeaTPAQ scores correlated positively with measures of caffeine addiction, anxiety and depression, which suggests the adequate concurrent validity of the scale.
Conclusion
Findings suggest that the HeatPAQ is a specific, short and simple-to-use self-report questionnaire to assess HTPs addiction reliably and validly. Pending future studies confirming our results, we hope that the HeatPAQ will facilitate routine screening for HTPs addiction, which is an essential step towards appropriate prevention and intervention efforts and to inform policy makers.
Q1

Initiating buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder without prerequisite withdrawal: an updated systematic review
Adams K.K., Waters K., Sobieraj D.M.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Withdrawal prior to buprenorphine initiation may be intolerable or create barriers to therapy. We aim to update our previous systematic review on the efficacy and safety of buprenorphine initiation strategies that aim to omit prerequisite opioid withdrawal (POW).
Methods
We used the same search strategy for this update as in the original review with the modification of an additional term “low dose.” We searched Embase and Scopus from April 11, 2020 to August 1, 2024 with searches in Google Scholar and www.clinicaltrials.gov. A study was included if it described patients with opioid use disorder or chronic pain that transitioned from a full mu-opioid agonist to buprenorphine without preceding withdrawal and reported withdrawal during initiation as an outcome. Two investigators independently screened citations and articles for inclusion, collected data using a standardized data collection tool, and assessed study risk of bias.
Results
Forty-four articles met our inclusion criteria; 31 were case reports/series reporting 84 cases and 13 were single-arm observational studies reporting a total of 576 cases. These studies were added to the literature from our original systematic review, totaling 59 studies and 682 patients. Sublingual buprenorphine was the most common initial formulation, comprising 55% (376/682) of cases. In case reports/series, use of a validated scale to measure withdrawal was uncommon; validated scales were only used in 36% of patients. All other patients had withdrawal assessed in a manner not utilizing a validated scale. Approximately half of these patients experienced any level of withdrawal (57/106 = 54%). The specific outcome of “any level of withdrawal” was not consistently reported in single-arm observational studies. Eight studies reported on any level of withdrawal, which occurred in 41% (177/428) of initiation attempts; some patients experienced more than one initiation attempt. Thirteen patients in case reports/series and 37 patients in the single-arm observational studies reported clinically significant withdrawal (50/682 = 7%). 81% (451/555) of patients transitioned to buprenorphine.
Conclusion
The prevalence of buprenorphine dosing strategies that aim to omit POW has vastly increased over the past 4 years. While quality of evidence remains low, the increased quantity of publications and integration into health-system guidelines and protocols demonstrates the need for prospective, controlled studies. It is unknown how selection bias impacts current findings, further highlighting the need for prospective, randomized, controlled trials evaluating these dosing strategies.
Q1

“We need all hands on deck”: characterizing addiction medicine training in Canada—a mixed methods study of fellowship program directors
Lu C., Chan K., Martin L., Fairbairn N.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Addiction Medicine training in Canada has evolved substantially in the last few years with the establishment of accreditation standards and several new fellowship programs. The novelty of these formal training programs, created in response to complex and ever-expanding clinical needs in Addiction Medicine, creates unique educational circumstances that must be understood to support future growth. This study characterizes the current state of these postgraduate training programs in Canada through the perspectives of Program Directors (PDs).
Methods
This study is a mixed methods study of 12 PDs. In Phase 1, participants completed a quantitative survey analyzed through descriptive statistics. In Phase 2, participants underwent a qualitative semi-structured interview that was coded with a thematic analysis approach. Mixing occurred both during the interim analysis between phases and during the interpretation stage.
Results
28 trainees enrolled in a fellowship program in 2021–22 across 10 programs, and 27 trainees enrolled in 2022–23 across 11 programs. In each year, there were significantly fewer available spots than applications (31% and 29%, respectively). PDs identified a funding “bottleneck” as the most difficult and important challenge facing programs, with trainees supported by diverse and unstable funding sources. Qualitative analysis highlighted the need for sustainable funding models, flexibility toward alternative training pathways (shorter durations of training and re-entry from practice), and establishment of a national community of practice to support the co-creation of a robust addictions medical education infrastructure.
Conclusion
For Addiction Medicine training to meet workforce demands, PDs stressed that funding was the challenge of prime importance. Future studies should examine the perspectives of Addiction Medicine fellows, the clinical and research impacts of fellowship graduates, and the cost-effectiveness of fellowship funding models.
Q1

Individual differences in treatment effects of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy in primary care: a moderation analysis of a randomized clinical trial
Hyland K., Romero D., Andreasson S., Hammarberg A., Hedman-Lagerlöf E., Johansson M.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Background and aims
Little is known regarding predictors of outcome in treatment of alcohol dependence via the internet and in primary care. The aim of the present study was to investigate the role of socio-demographic and clinical factors for outcomes in internet-based cognitive behavioral treatment (ICBT) added to treatment as usual (TAU) for alcohol dependence in primary care.
Design
Secondary analyses based on data from a randomized controlled trial in which participants were randomized to ICBT + TAU or to TAU only.
Setting
The study was conducted in collaboration with 14 primary care centers in Stockholm, Sweden.
Participants
The randomized trial included 264 adult primary care patients with alcohol dependence enrolled between September 2017 and November 2019.
Interventions
Patients in the parent trial were randomized to ICBT that was added to TAU (n = 132) or to TAU only (n = 132). ICBT was a 12-week intervention based on motivational interviewing, relapse prevention and behavioral self-control training.
Measures
Primary outcome was number of standard drinks last 30 days. Sociodemographic and clinical predictors were tested in separate models using linear mixed effects models.
Findings
Severity of dependence, assessed by ICD-10 criteria for alcohol dependence, was the only predictor for changes in alcohol consumption and the only moderator of the effect of treatment. Participants with severe dependence showed a larger reduction in alcohol consumption between baseline and 3-months follow-up compared to participants with moderate dependence. The patients with moderate dependence continued to reduce their alcohol consumption between 3- and 12-months follow-up, while patients with severe dependence did not.
Conclusions
Dependence severity predicted changes in alcohol consumption following treatment of alcohol dependence in primary care, with or without added ICBT. Dependence severity was also found to moderate the effect of treatment. The results suggest that treatment for both moderate and severe alcohol dependence is viable in primary care.
Clinical trial registration: The study was approved by the Regional Ethics Board in Stockholm, no. 2016/1367–31/2. The study protocol was published in Trials 30 December 2019. The trial identifier is ISRCTN69957414, available at http://www.isrctn.com, assigned 7 June 2018, retrospectively registered.
Q1

Patient characteristics associated with their level of twelve-step attendance prior to entry into treatment for substance use disorders
Galanter M., White W.L., Dennis M.L., Hunter B., Passetti L., Lustig D.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The availability of the fellowships of Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous in community settings is extensive and patients admitted to treatment programs for substance use disorder may therefore have previously attended meetings of these two Twelve Step (TS) programs. Data on such prior attendance and related clinical findings, however, are not typically available. They can, however, be relevant to how ensuing treatment is planned. We therefore undertook this study to ascertain the feasibility of evaluating how the level of TS attendance prior to treatment entry can be evaluated, and to determine clinically relevant findings that are associated with such attendance.
Methods
Over the course of 2022, 3,125 patients were admitted to a large urban multimodal United States-based treatment center. All patients were administered the structured interview-based Global Appraisal of Individual Needs upon admission. This instrument is employed to evaluate substance use, demographics, and related psychosocial variables. Clinically related variables were analyzed relative to whether given respondents have a history of any TS group attendance prior to admission.
Results
Distinctions were found between the 57.3% of respondents who had previously attended any TS meetings and the 42.6% who had not attended any meetings. Compared to respondents who had never attended TS meetings, those who had ever attended scored higher on emotional problems (p <.001, d = -0.58), and had more likely undergone previous SUD treatment (p <.001, d = 0.80). They were less likely to use substances in unsafe situations (p <.001, d = -0.55) and were less likely to express reluctance to remain abstinent (p <.001, d = -0.50). The 11% of respondents who considered themselves regular TS members reported a lower frequency of recent substance use (p <.001, d = -0.80) and were more likely to have attended intensive outpatient (p <.001, 0.46) and residential (p <.001, 0.44) treatment than patients who did not consider themselves regular attenders.
Conclusions
Examination of TS attendance prior to treatment admission is feasible. Findings can be clinically relevant for differential treatment planning and can also serve as a basis for further research into the role of TS participation in community settings.
Q1

A stakeholder-driven approach to designing a peer recovery coach role for implementation in community-oriented primary care teams in South Africa
Myers B., Regenauer K.S., Johnson K., Brown I., Rose A.L., Ciya N., Ndamase S., Jacobs Y., Anvari M.S., Hines A., Dean D., Baskar R., Magidson J.F.
Q1
Addiction science & clinical practice
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 1
,

Open Access
,
PDF
|
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
In South Africa, community-oriented primary care teams work to re-engage out-of-care people with HIV (PWH) in treatment, many of whom have substance use (SU) concerns. SU stigma is high among these teams, limiting care engagement efforts. Integrating peer recovery coaches into community-oriented primary care teams could shift SU stigma and improve patients’ engagement in care. The peer role does not exist in SA and represents a workforce innovation. To enhance acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness for the local context, we engaged multiple stakeholder groups to co-design a peer role for community-oriented primary care team integration.
Methods
We used a five-step human-centered design process: (i) semi-structured interviews with healthcare worker (n = 25) and patient (n = 15) stakeholders to identify priorities for the role; (ii) development of an initial role overview; (iii) six ideation workshops with healthcare worker (n = 12) and patient (n = 12) stakeholders to adapt this overview; (iv) refinement of the role prototype via four co-design workshops with healthcare worker (n = 7) and patient (n = 9) stakeholders; and (v) consultation with HIV and SU service leaders to assess the acceptability and feasibility of integrating this prototype into community-oriented primary care teams.
Results
Although all stakeholders viewed the peer role as acceptable, patients and healthcare worker identified different priorities. Patients prioritized the care experience through sharing of lived experience and confidential SU support. Healthcare worker prioritized clarification of the peer role, working conditions, and processes to limit any impact on the community-oriented primary care team. A personal history of SU, minimum 1 year in SU recovery, and strong community knowledge were considered role prerequisites by all stakeholders. Through the iterative process, stakeholders clarified their preferences for peer session structure, location, and content and expanded proposed components of peer training to include therapeutic and professional work practice competencies. Service leaders endorsed the prototype after the addition of peer integration training for community-oriented primary care teams and peer mentoring to address community and team dynamics.
Conclusion
Stakeholder engagement in an iterative design process has been integral to co-designing a peer role that multiple stakeholder groups consider acceptable and that community-oriented primary care teams are willing to implement. This offers a methodological framework for other teams designing SU workforce innovations.
Top-100
Citing journals
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
|
|
Proteomics - Clinical Applications
1130 citations, 3.75%
|
|
Proteomics
790 citations, 2.62%
|
|
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
770 citations, 2.55%
|
|
Expert Review of Proteomics
716 citations, 2.37%
|
|
Journal of Proteomics
592 citations, 1.96%
|
|
Scientific Reports
557 citations, 1.85%
|
|
Journal of Proteome Research
554 citations, 1.84%
|
|
PLoS ONE
517 citations, 1.71%
|
|
Methods in Molecular Biology
482 citations, 1.6%
|
|
Molecular and Cellular Proteomics
330 citations, 1.09%
|
|
Analytical Chemistry
283 citations, 0.94%
|
|
Cancers
264 citations, 0.88%
|
|
Clinical Proteomics
231 citations, 0.77%
|
|
Frontiers in Immunology
201 citations, 0.67%
|
|
Electrophoresis
191 citations, 0.63%
|
|
Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology
153 citations, 0.51%
|
|
Mass Spectrometry Reviews
147 citations, 0.49%
|
|
Cells
139 citations, 0.46%
|
|
Proteomes
136 citations, 0.45%
|
|
Oncotarget
127 citations, 0.42%
|
|
Frontiers in Oncology
125 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Biochimica et Biophysica Acta - Proteins and Proteomics
124 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
122 citations, 0.4%
|
|
Bioanalysis
111 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Molecules
96 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Frontiers in Microbiology
89 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Clinica Chimica Acta
88 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Biomolecules
88 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation
82 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Diagnostics
82 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Nature Communications
81 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Biomedicines
78 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Journal of Clinical Medicine
77 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry
73 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Journal of Mass Spectrometry
71 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
70 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Journal of Biological Chemistry
68 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Analytica Chimica Acta
67 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Proteome Science
65 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Advances in Clinical Chemistry
63 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Journal of Chromatography B: Analytical Technologies in the Biomedical and Life Sciences
63 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Free Radical Biology and Medicine
62 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Clinical Biochemistry
59 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Journal of Translational Medicine
58 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Frontiers in Physiology
57 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Biomarkers in Medicine
54 citations, 0.18%
|
|
TrAC - Trends in Analytical Chemistry
53 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Clinical Chemistry
53 citations, 0.18%
|
|
OMICS A Journal of Integrative Biology
53 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics
52 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
52 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Antioxidants
51 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Frontiers in Medicine
51 citations, 0.17%
|
|
BioMed Research International
50 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Talanta
49 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Frontiers in Pharmacology
49 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Journal of Separation Science
49 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications
48 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
48 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Journal of Chromatography A
47 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
44 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Antioxidants and Redox Signaling
44 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology
43 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Journal of Extracellular Vesicles
43 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Metabolites
42 citations, 0.14%
|
|
BMC Cancer
41 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Oncology Letters
39 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Biosensors and Bioelectronics
39 citations, 0.13%
|
|
FASEB Journal
38 citations, 0.13%
|
|
British Journal of Cancer
38 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
38 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity
37 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Analytical Biochemistry
37 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Molecular Neurobiology
37 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
36 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Frontiers in Neurology
35 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
35 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Chemical Reviews
35 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Transplantation
35 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Journal of Neurochemistry
34 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry
34 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Frontiers in Endocrinology
34 citations, 0.11%
|
|
International Journal of Biological Macromolecules
34 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Frontiers in Genetics
33 citations, 0.11%
|
|
World Journal of Gastroenterology
33 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis
33 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Amino Acids
32 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Nutrients
31 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Journal of Cellular Physiology
31 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Experimental Eye Research
31 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Transfusion
31 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Pharmaceuticals
30 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Cancer Letters
30 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Pharmaceutics
30 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Microorganisms
30 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Circulation Research
30 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Kidney International
30 citations, 0.1%
|
|
EBioMedicine
30 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy
30 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Life Sciences
29 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
|
Citing publishers
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
|
|
Elsevier
5735 citations, 19.02%
|
|
Springer Nature
4942 citations, 16.39%
|
|
Wiley
4631 citations, 15.36%
|
|
MDPI
2648 citations, 8.78%
|
|
Taylor & Francis
1512 citations, 5.01%
|
|
American Chemical Society (ACS)
1323 citations, 4.39%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
1226 citations, 4.07%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
589 citations, 1.95%
|
|
Oxford University Press
518 citations, 1.72%
|
|
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
513 citations, 1.7%
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
469 citations, 1.56%
|
|
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
417 citations, 1.38%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
366 citations, 1.21%
|
|
SAGE
262 citations, 0.87%
|
|
Mary Ann Liebert
179 citations, 0.59%
|
|
Spandidos Publications
160 citations, 0.53%
|
|
155 citations, 0.51%
|
|
Impact Journals
150 citations, 0.5%
|
|
American Society for Microbiology
130 citations, 0.43%
|
|
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
128 citations, 0.42%
|
|
American Physiological Society
125 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
116 citations, 0.38%
|
|
American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
103 citations, 0.34%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
98 citations, 0.32%
|
|
IOS Press
88 citations, 0.29%
|
|
S. Karger AG
84 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Baishideng Publishing Group
76 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
74 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Pleiades Publishing
70 citations, 0.23%
|
|
BMJ
70 citations, 0.23%
|
|
American Association for Clinical Chemistry
61 citations, 0.2%
|
|
AME Publishing Company
56 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
51 citations, 0.17%
|
|
IntechOpen
50 citations, 0.17%
|
|
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
47 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Portland Press
47 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
40 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB)
39 citations, 0.13%
|
|
American Society for Clinical Investigation
36 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
34 citations, 0.11%
|
|
PeerJ
33 citations, 0.11%
|
|
Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO)
31 citations, 0.1%
|
|
American Society of Nephrology
30 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Annual Reviews
29 citations, 0.1%
|
|
28 citations, 0.09%
|
|
The American Association of Immunologists
28 citations, 0.09%
|
|
The Company of Biologists
27 citations, 0.09%
|
|
The Endocrine Society
26 citations, 0.09%
|
|
IOP Publishing
25 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Microbiology Society
23 citations, 0.08%
|
|
F1000 Research
22 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Rockefeller University Press
21 citations, 0.07%
|
|
The Royal Society
21 citations, 0.07%
|
|
eLife Sciences Publications
21 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Society for the Study of Reproduction
20 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Society of Nuclear Medicine
18 citations, 0.06%
|
|
European Molecular Biology Organization
18 citations, 0.06%
|
|
AIP Publishing
17 citations, 0.06%
|
|
American Diabetes Association
16 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Bioscientifica
16 citations, 0.05%
|
|
American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
15 citations, 0.05%
|
|
American Society of Hematology
15 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Research Square Platform LLC
15 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Asian Pacific Organization for Cancer Prevention
14 citations, 0.05%
|
|
American Thoracic Society
14 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Canadian Science Publishing
14 citations, 0.05%
|
|
IGI Global
14 citations, 0.05%
|
|
OAE Publishing Inc.
13 citations, 0.04%
|
|
European Respiratory Society (ERS)
12 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Neoplasia Press
11 citations, 0.04%
|
|
10 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Higher Education Press
10 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Society for Neuroscience
10 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Hans Publishers
10 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Institute of Biochemistry
10 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Korean Society for Biotechnology and Bioengineering
9 citations, 0.03%
|
|
American Society for Nutrition
9 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Society of Medical Biochemists of Serbia
9 citations, 0.03%
|
|
9 citations, 0.03%
|
|
The Mass Spectrometry Society of Japan
9 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Japanese Electrophoresis Society
9 citations, 0.03%
|
|
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
8 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
8 citations, 0.03%
|
|
World Scientific
7 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Pharmaceutical Society of Japan
7 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Academy of Pediatrics
7 citations, 0.02%
|
|
7 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Society of Animal Science
7 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Medknow
7 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Institute of Mathematical Sciences (AIMS)
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Radiation Research Society
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Science in China Press
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
The Russian Academy of Sciences
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
SciELO
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
King Saud University
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
The Korean Society of Genetics
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Medical Association (AMA)
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Xi'an Jiaotong University
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Aging and Disease
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
|
Publishing organizations
10
20
30
40
50
|
|
Johns Hopkins University
50 publications, 2.57%
|
|
University of Sydney
24 publications, 1.24%
|
|
University of Glasgow
24 publications, 1.24%
|
|
University College Dublin
23 publications, 1.18%
|
|
University of Washington
21 publications, 1.08%
|
|
Harvard University
20 publications, 1.03%
|
|
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
20 publications, 1.03%
|
|
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
19 publications, 0.98%
|
|
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College
19 publications, 0.98%
|
|
Heidelberg University
18 publications, 0.93%
|
|
Karolinska Institute
18 publications, 0.93%
|
|
Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico
18 publications, 0.93%
|
|
Academy of Athens
16 publications, 0.82%
|
|
Peking University
15 publications, 0.77%
|
|
Mahidol University
14 publications, 0.72%
|
|
Technical University of Munich
13 publications, 0.67%
|
|
Lund University
13 publications, 0.67%
|
|
Vanderbilt University
13 publications, 0.67%
|
|
University of Michigan
13 publications, 0.67%
|
|
Université de Lille
13 publications, 0.67%
|
|
German Cancer Research Center
12 publications, 0.62%
|
|
Nanjing Medical University
11 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Medical University of Vienna
11 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Monash University
11 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Fudan University
10 publications, 0.51%
|
|
Sichuan University
10 publications, 0.51%
|
|
University of Copenhagen
10 publications, 0.51%
|
|
Siriraj Hospital
10 publications, 0.51%
|
|
Arizona State University
10 publications, 0.51%
|
|
University of California, Los Angeles
10 publications, 0.51%
|
|
Ruhr University Bochum
10 publications, 0.51%
|
|
University of British Columbia
10 publications, 0.51%
|
|
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center
10 publications, 0.51%
|
|
Erasmus University Medical Center
10 publications, 0.51%
|
|
University of Alabama at Birmingham
10 publications, 0.51%
|
|
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
9 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Sun Yat-sen University
9 publications, 0.46%
|
|
University of Milan
9 publications, 0.46%
|
|
University College London
9 publications, 0.46%
|
|
University of Southern California
9 publications, 0.46%
|
|
University of Melbourne
9 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Macquarie University
9 publications, 0.46%
|
|
University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus
9 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Indiana University School of Medicine
9 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
8 publications, 0.41%
|
|
ETH Zurich
8 publications, 0.41%
|
|
Skåne University Hospital
8 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Zurich
8 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Southern Denmark
8 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Verona
8 publications, 0.41%
|
|
National University of Singapore
8 publications, 0.41%
|
|
Hannover Medical School
8 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Victoria
8 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Nebraska Medical Center
8 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Tübingen
7 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Manipal Academy of Higher Education
7 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Uppsala University
7 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre
7 publications, 0.36%
|
|
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
7 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Geneva University Hospitals
7 publications, 0.36%
|
|
University of Geneva
7 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Capital Medical University
7 publications, 0.36%
|
|
University of Milano-Bicocca
7 publications, 0.36%
|
|
National Taiwan University
7 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Osaka University
7 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Vrije Universiteit Medical Center
7 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
7 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
7 publications, 0.36%
|
|
McGill University
7 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Leiden University Medical Center
7 publications, 0.36%
|
|
University of Greifswald
7 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Food and Drug Administration
7 publications, 0.36%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Madison
7 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Juntendo University
7 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Mayo Clinic
7 publications, 0.36%
|
|
University of Toronto
7 publications, 0.36%
|
|
University of Kentucky
7 publications, 0.36%
|
|
National Cancer Institute
7 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Beijing Normal University
6 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Zhejiang University
6 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Xi'an Jiaotong University
6 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Karolinska University Hospital
6 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Jinan University
6 publications, 0.31%
|
|
King's College London
6 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Chang Gung University
6 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Yale University
6 publications, 0.31%
|
|
National Cheng Kung University
6 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital
6 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Sungkyunkwan University
6 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Chinese University of Hong Kong
6 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Korea Basic Science Institute
6 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Brigham and Women's Hospital
6 publications, 0.31%
|
|
University of California, Davis
6 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Keio University
6 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
6 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Paris Cité University
6 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research
6 publications, 0.31%
|
|
University of Minnesota
6 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Albert Ludwig University of Freiburg
6 publications, 0.31%
|
|
National Institute on Aging
6 publications, 0.31%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
10
20
30
40
50
|
Publishing organizations in 5 years
1
2
3
4
5
|
|
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
5 publications, 2.18%
|
|
Karolinska Institute
5 publications, 2.18%
|
|
University of Sydney
5 publications, 2.18%
|
|
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
5 publications, 2.18%
|
|
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
5 publications, 2.18%
|
|
Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
5 publications, 2.18%
|
|
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
4 publications, 1.75%
|
|
Peking University
4 publications, 1.75%
|
|
Fudan University
4 publications, 1.75%
|
|
Xi'an Jiaotong University
4 publications, 1.75%
|
|
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College
4 publications, 1.75%
|
|
Johns Hopkins University
4 publications, 1.75%
|
|
Ege University
3 publications, 1.31%
|
|
Sichuan University
3 publications, 1.31%
|
|
Yenepoya University
3 publications, 1.31%
|
|
Technical University of Munich
3 publications, 1.31%
|
|
Mangalore University
3 publications, 1.31%
|
|
Capital Medical University
3 publications, 1.31%
|
|
Jinan University
3 publications, 1.31%
|
|
Harvard University
3 publications, 1.31%
|
|
Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences
3 publications, 1.31%
|
|
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
3 publications, 1.31%
|
|
German Centre for Cardiovascular Research
3 publications, 1.31%
|
|
Saarland University
3 publications, 1.31%
|
|
Saarland University Hospital
3 publications, 1.31%
|
|
Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
3 publications, 1.31%
|
|
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Aydın Adnan Menderes University
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Huazhong University of Science and Technology
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
King Edward Memorial Hospital and Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Lund University
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Humboldt University of Berlin
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Free University of Berlin
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Grenoble Alpes University
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Nanjing Medical University
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
ETH Zurich
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Skåne University Hospital
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
German Jordanian University
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Chongqing Medical University
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Nanchang University
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
University of Milan
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Tianjin Medical University
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
University of Oslo
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Oslo University Hospital
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
University of Southern California
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Anhui Medical University
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Zunyi Medical University
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Northwest University
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
European Institute of Oncology
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Shandong First Medical University
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Monash University
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
University of Queensland
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Berghofer Medical Research Institute
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Westmead Hospital
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Kyung Hee University
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Arizona State University
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Chinese University of Hong Kong
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Daegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and Technology
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Brigham and Women's Hospital
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
University of California, Davis
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Shandong University
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Zhengzhou University
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
University of Texas at Austin
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Fraunhofer Institute for Digital Medicine
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Dan L Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Albert Ludwig University of Freiburg
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
University of Bremen
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
University of Toronto
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
University of Guelph
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Texas Children's Hospital
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Université Paris-Saclay
2 publications, 0.87%
|
|
Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology
1 publication, 0.44%
|
|
V. N. Orekhovich Research Institute of Biomedical Chemistry
1 publication, 0.44%
|
|
King Saud University
1 publication, 0.44%
|
|
Koc University
1 publication, 0.44%
|
|
King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital
1 publication, 0.44%
|
|
University of Delhi
1 publication, 0.44%
|
|
Panjab University
1 publication, 0.44%
|
|
All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi
1 publication, 0.44%
|
|
Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune
1 publication, 0.44%
|
|
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
1 publication, 0.44%
|
|
Jawaharlal Nehru University
1 publication, 0.44%
|
|
University of Baghdad
1 publication, 0.44%
|
|
University of Tübingen
1 publication, 0.44%
|
|
Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University
1 publication, 0.44%
|
|
University of Kerbala
1 publication, 0.44%
|
|
Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology
1 publication, 0.44%
|
|
Tsinghua University
1 publication, 0.44%
|
|
Zhejiang University of Technology
1 publication, 0.44%
|
|
National Dairy Research Institute
1 publication, 0.44%
|
|
Tongji University
1 publication, 0.44%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
1
2
3
4
5
|
Publishing countries
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
|
|
USA
|
USA, 403, 20.74%
USA
403 publications, 20.74%
|
China
|
China, 235, 12.09%
China
235 publications, 12.09%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 202, 10.4%
Germany
202 publications, 10.4%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 124, 6.38%
United Kingdom
124 publications, 6.38%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 97, 4.99%
Italy
97 publications, 4.99%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 76, 3.91%
Australia
76 publications, 3.91%
|
France
|
France, 70, 3.6%
France
70 publications, 3.6%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 55, 2.83%
Netherlands
55 publications, 2.83%
|
India
|
India, 54, 2.78%
India
54 publications, 2.78%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 53, 2.73%
Spain
53 publications, 2.73%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 51, 2.62%
Japan
51 publications, 2.62%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 50, 2.57%
Switzerland
50 publications, 2.57%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 45, 2.32%
Sweden
45 publications, 2.32%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 43, 2.21%
Canada
43 publications, 2.21%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 34, 1.75%
Ireland
34 publications, 1.75%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 33, 1.7%
Republic of Korea
33 publications, 1.7%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 30, 1.54%
Denmark
30 publications, 1.54%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 23, 1.18%
Belgium
23 publications, 1.18%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 21, 1.08%
Greece
21 publications, 1.08%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 20, 1.03%
Brazil
20 publications, 1.03%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 17, 0.87%
Austria
17 publications, 0.87%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 16, 0.82%
Thailand
16 publications, 0.82%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 13, 0.67%
Portugal
13 publications, 0.67%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 13, 0.67%
Singapore
13 publications, 0.67%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 11, 0.57%
Poland
11 publications, 0.57%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 10, 0.51%
Finland
10 publications, 0.51%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 9, 0.46%
Norway
9 publications, 0.46%
|
Luxembourg
|
Luxembourg, 8, 0.41%
Luxembourg
8 publications, 0.41%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 7, 0.36%
Saudi Arabia
7 publications, 0.36%
|
North Macedonia
|
North Macedonia, 7, 0.36%
North Macedonia
7 publications, 0.36%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 7, 0.36%
Turkey
7 publications, 0.36%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 5, 0.26%
Russia
5 publications, 0.26%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 5, 0.26%
Malaysia
5 publications, 0.26%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 4, 0.21%
Egypt
4 publications, 0.21%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 4, 0.21%
Israel
4 publications, 0.21%
|
Serbia
|
Serbia, 4, 0.21%
Serbia
4 publications, 0.21%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 4, 0.21%
Czech Republic
4 publications, 0.21%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 4, 0.21%
South Africa
4 publications, 0.21%
|
Jordan
|
Jordan, 3, 0.15%
Jordan
3 publications, 0.15%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 3, 0.15%
New Zealand
3 publications, 0.15%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 2, 0.1%
Hungary
2 publications, 0.1%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 2, 0.1%
Iran
2 publications, 0.1%
|
Kenya
|
Kenya, 2, 0.1%
Kenya
2 publications, 0.1%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 2, 0.1%
Pakistan
2 publications, 0.1%
|
Slovakia
|
Slovakia, 2, 0.1%
Slovakia
2 publications, 0.1%
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenia, 2, 0.1%
Slovenia
2 publications, 0.1%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 2, 0.1%
Chile
2 publications, 0.1%
|
Bangladesh
|
Bangladesh, 1, 0.05%
Bangladesh
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 1, 0.05%
Indonesia
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 1, 0.05%
Iraq
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Cyprus
|
Cyprus, 1, 0.05%
Cyprus
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 1, 0.05%
Colombia
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Kuwait
|
Kuwait, 1, 0.05%
Kuwait
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 1, 0.05%
Mexico
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 1, 0.05%
Nigeria
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Peru
|
Peru, 1, 0.05%
Peru
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Puerto Rico
|
Puerto Rico, 1, 0.05%
Puerto Rico
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Saint Kitts and Nevis
|
Saint Kitts and Nevis, 1, 0.05%
Saint Kitts and Nevis
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Uganda
|
Uganda, 1, 0.05%
Uganda
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Croatia
|
Croatia, 1, 0.05%
Croatia
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Ethiopia
|
Ethiopia, 1, 0.05%
Ethiopia
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Show all (31 more) | |
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
|
Publishing countries in 5 years
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
|
|
China
|
China, 71, 31%
China
71 publications, 31%
|
USA
|
USA, 39, 17.03%
USA
39 publications, 17.03%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 21, 9.17%
Germany
21 publications, 9.17%
|
India
|
India, 12, 5.24%
India
12 publications, 5.24%
|
France
|
France, 10, 4.37%
France
10 publications, 4.37%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 9, 3.93%
Australia
9 publications, 3.93%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 9, 3.93%
United Kingdom
9 publications, 3.93%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 9, 3.93%
Sweden
9 publications, 3.93%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 7, 3.06%
Canada
7 publications, 3.06%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 7, 3.06%
Netherlands
7 publications, 3.06%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 6, 2.62%
Brazil
6 publications, 2.62%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 5, 2.18%
Italy
5 publications, 2.18%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 5, 2.18%
Republic of Korea
5 publications, 2.18%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 5, 2.18%
Turkey
5 publications, 2.18%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 5, 2.18%
Switzerland
5 publications, 2.18%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 4, 1.75%
Poland
4 publications, 1.75%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 3, 1.31%
Ireland
3 publications, 1.31%
|
North Macedonia
|
North Macedonia, 3, 1.31%
North Macedonia
3 publications, 1.31%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 2, 0.87%
Russia
2 publications, 0.87%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 2, 0.87%
Portugal
2 publications, 0.87%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 2, 0.87%
Austria
2 publications, 0.87%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 2, 0.87%
Denmark
2 publications, 0.87%
|
Jordan
|
Jordan, 2, 0.87%
Jordan
2 publications, 0.87%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 2, 0.87%
Spain
2 publications, 0.87%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 2, 0.87%
Norway
2 publications, 0.87%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 2, 0.87%
Saudi Arabia
2 publications, 0.87%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 2, 0.87%
South Africa
2 publications, 0.87%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 1, 0.44%
Belgium
1 publication, 0.44%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 1, 0.44%
Greece
1 publication, 0.44%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 1, 0.44%
Iraq
1 publication, 0.44%
|
Luxembourg
|
Luxembourg, 1, 0.44%
Luxembourg
1 publication, 0.44%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 1, 0.44%
Pakistan
1 publication, 0.44%
|
Serbia
|
Serbia, 1, 0.44%
Serbia
1 publication, 0.44%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 1, 0.44%
Singapore
1 publication, 0.44%
|
Slovakia
|
Slovakia, 1, 0.44%
Slovakia
1 publication, 0.44%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 1, 0.44%
Thailand
1 publication, 0.44%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 1, 0.44%
Finland
1 publication, 0.44%
|
Ethiopia
|
Ethiopia, 1, 0.44%
Ethiopia
1 publication, 0.44%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 1, 0.44%
Japan
1 publication, 0.44%
|
Show all (9 more) | |
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
|