Open Access
Pleura and Peritoneum
Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
SCImago
Q3
WOS
Q3
Impact factor
1.4
SJR
0.309
CiteScore
2.5
Categories
Internal Medicine
Areas
Medicine
Years of issue
2016-2025
journal names
Pleura and Peritoneum
Top-3 citing journals

Pleura and Peritoneum
(183 citations)

Cancers
(135 citations)

Annals of Surgical Oncology
(112 citations)
Top-3 organizations

Odense University Hospital
(17 publications)

University of Tübingen
(17 publications)

Lausanne University Hospital
(12 publications)

Odense University Hospital
(11 publications)

Lausanne University Hospital
(9 publications)

University of Tübingen
(8 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
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
|
|
Pleura and Peritoneum
183 citations, 9.36%
|
|
Cancers
135 citations, 6.9%
|
|
Annals of Surgical Oncology
112 citations, 5.73%
|
|
European Journal of Surgical Oncology
92 citations, 4.7%
|
|
Journal of Clinical Medicine
49 citations, 2.51%
|
|
Journal of Surgical Oncology
40 citations, 2.04%
|
|
Frontiers in Oncology
36 citations, 1.84%
|
|
Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques
35 citations, 1.79%
|
|
Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology
25 citations, 1.28%
|
|
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
24 citations, 1.23%
|
|
British Journal of Surgery
22 citations, 1.12%
|
|
Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology
19 citations, 0.97%
|
|
BJS Open
19 citations, 0.97%
|
|
BMJ Open
15 citations, 0.77%
|
|
Clinical and Experimental Metastasis
15 citations, 0.77%
|
|
BMC Cancer
14 citations, 0.72%
|
|
Cureus
14 citations, 0.72%
|
|
PLoS ONE
13 citations, 0.66%
|
|
Frontiers in Surgery
12 citations, 0.61%
|
|
Scientific Reports
12 citations, 0.61%
|
|
The Lancet Oncology
11 citations, 0.56%
|
|
Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology
11 citations, 0.56%
|
|
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology
11 citations, 0.56%
|
|
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer
10 citations, 0.51%
|
|
Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America
10 citations, 0.51%
|
|
Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer
10 citations, 0.51%
|
|
Oncology
9 citations, 0.46%
|
|
Nanomedicine
9 citations, 0.46%
|
|
International Journal of Hyperthermia
8 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Nature Reviews Disease Primers
8 citations, 0.41%
|
|
ANZ Journal of Surgery
8 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Reactions Weekly
8 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Digestive Medicine Research
8 citations, 0.41%
|
|
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
7 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology
7 citations, 0.36%
|
|
World Journal of Surgical Oncology
7 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Current Oncology
7 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Medicina
7 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Biology
7 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
6 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Human Pathology
6 citations, 0.31%
|
|
World Journal of Clinical Cases
6 citations, 0.31%
|
|
International Journal of Surgery
6 citations, 0.31%
|
|
BMC Surgery
6 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Diseases of the Colon and Rectum
6 citations, 0.31%
|
|
International Journal of Colorectal Disease
6 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Gastroenterology Research and Practice
6 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Journal of visceral surgery
6 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy
6 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Life
6 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie
6 citations, 0.31%
|
|
ACS applied materials & interfaces
5 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Clinical Cancer Research
5 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Visceral Medicine
5 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Frontiers in Pharmacology
5 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery
5 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Surgical Oncology
5 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Journal of Controlled Release
5 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Histopathology
5 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Minerva Medica
5 citations, 0.26%
|
|
European Journal of Cancer
5 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Clinical and Translational Oncology
5 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Gynecologic Oncology Reports
5 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Biomedicines
5 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Surgery Open Digestive Advance
5 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Colon and Rectum
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Clinical Nutrition ESPEN
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Diagnostic Cytopathology
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Journal of Clinical Pathology
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Acta Biomaterialia
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Cancer cytopathology
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
International Journal of Surgery Case Reports
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Biomolecules
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Gynecologic Oncology
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Respiratory Medicine
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Diagnostics
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Breathe
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Acta Chirurgica Belgica
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Radiographics
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Journal of Surgical Case Reports
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
JCO Global Oncology
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Surgical Oncology Insight
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Abdominal Radiology
3 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Frontiers in Immunology
3 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Toxicology Letters
3 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Journal of Gastric Cancer
3 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Cancer Treatment and Research Communications
3 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
3 citations, 0.15%
|
|
International Journal of Surgical Oncology
3 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Macromolecular Bioscience
3 citations, 0.15%
|
|
ACS Nano
3 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
3 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Bulletin du Cancer
3 citations, 0.15%
|
|
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology
3 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Cytopathology
3 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Journal of Surgical Research
3 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
|
Citing publishers
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
|
|
Springer Nature
380 citations, 19.43%
|
|
Elsevier
351 citations, 17.94%
|
|
MDPI
291 citations, 14.88%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
186 citations, 9.51%
|
|
Wiley
134 citations, 6.85%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
69 citations, 3.53%
|
|
Taylor & Francis
50 citations, 2.56%
|
|
AME Publishing Company
42 citations, 2.15%
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
29 citations, 1.48%
|
|
Oxford University Press
28 citations, 1.43%
|
|
BMJ
26 citations, 1.33%
|
|
SAGE
23 citations, 1.18%
|
|
American Chemical Society (ACS)
21 citations, 1.07%
|
|
S. Karger AG
19 citations, 0.97%
|
|
Baishideng Publishing Group
16 citations, 0.82%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
15 citations, 0.77%
|
|
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
14 citations, 0.72%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
13 citations, 0.66%
|
|
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
9 citations, 0.46%
|
|
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
8 citations, 0.41%
|
|
European Respiratory Society (ERS)
8 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Spandidos Publications
6 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Edizioni Minerva Medica
6 citations, 0.31%
|
|
American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
6 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Radiological Society of North America (RSNA)
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Media Sphere Publishing House
4 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Impact Journals
3 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Korean Gastric Cancer Association
3 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Neoplasia Press
3 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology and Colposcopy
3 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
3 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Scientific Scholar
3 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Bashkir State Medical University
3 citations, 0.15%
|
|
XMLink
3 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Optica Publishing Group
2 citations, 0.1%
|
|
American Medical Association (AMA)
2 citations, 0.1%
|
|
British Institute of Radiology
2 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Tomsk Cancer Research Institute
2 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Medknow
2 citations, 0.1%
|
|
SciELO
2 citations, 0.1%
|
|
OAE Publishing Inc.
2 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Russian Association of Coloproctology
2 citations, 0.1%
|
|
International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD)
2 citations, 0.1%
|
|
VSMU N.N. Burdenko
2 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Research Square Platform LLC
2 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Japan Society of Gynecologic and Obstetric Endoscopy and Minimally Invasive Therapy
2 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
IMR Press
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
American Society for Microbiology
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
American Society for Clinical Investigation
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
Japan Society of Hepatology
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
Portland Press
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
The Company of Biologists
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
American Society of Nephrology
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
Pensoft Publishers
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
Eco-Vector LLC
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
Colegio Brasileiro de Reproducao Animal
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
Baltic Medical Education Center
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
SPb RAACI
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
Fund Doctors, Innovations, Science for Children
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
Mark Allen Group
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
ASME International
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
Infra-M Academic Publishing House
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES)
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
Bioscientifica
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
The Korean Society of Pathologists and The Korean Society for Cytopathology
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
CIC Edizioni Internazionali
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
EKOlab
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
Non-profit partnership Society of Interventional Oncoradiologists
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
Ulyanovsk State University
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology; Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology and Colposcopy
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
Japan Society of Nursing Research
1 citation, 0.05%
|
|
Show all (49 more) | |
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
|
Publishing organizations
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
|
|
University of Tübingen
17 publications, 6.72%
|
|
Odense University Hospital
17 publications, 6.72%
|
|
Lausanne University Hospital
12 publications, 4.74%
|
|
Paris Cité University
9 publications, 3.56%
|
|
Ruhr University Bochum
9 publications, 3.56%
|
|
University Hospital Tübingen
9 publications, 3.56%
|
|
University of Southern Denmark
7 publications, 2.77%
|
|
Ghent University Hospital
7 publications, 2.77%
|
|
St George Hospital and Community Health Service (Australia)
6 publications, 2.37%
|
|
University of New South Wales
5 publications, 1.98%
|
|
Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico
5 publications, 1.98%
|
|
Aarhus University Hospital
5 publications, 1.98%
|
|
National University of Singapore
5 publications, 1.98%
|
|
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
5 publications, 1.98%
|
|
Cancer Research Institute Ghent
4 publications, 1.58%
|
|
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille
4 publications, 1.58%
|
|
Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University
3 publications, 1.19%
|
|
All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi
3 publications, 1.19%
|
|
Homi Bhabha National Institute
3 publications, 1.19%
|
|
Tata Memorial Centre
3 publications, 1.19%
|
|
Karolinska Institute
3 publications, 1.19%
|
|
University of Verona
3 publications, 1.19%
|
|
University of Messina
3 publications, 1.19%
|
|
Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre
3 publications, 1.19%
|
|
Liverpool Hospital
3 publications, 1.19%
|
|
The Queen Elizabeth Hospital
3 publications, 1.19%
|
|
University of Tokyo
3 publications, 1.19%
|
|
Herzen Moscow Oncology Research Institute
2 publications, 0.79%
|
|
Dokuz Eylül University
2 publications, 0.79%
|
|
All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh
2 publications, 0.79%
|
|
Ghent University
2 publications, 0.79%
|
|
University of Strasbourg
2 publications, 0.79%
|
|
University of Bern
2 publications, 0.79%
|
|
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
2 publications, 0.79%
|
|
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
2 publications, 0.79%
|
|
University of Oxford
2 publications, 0.79%
|
|
University of Adelaide
2 publications, 0.79%
|
|
Tokyo Women's Medical University
2 publications, 0.79%
|
|
Case Western Reserve University
2 publications, 0.79%
|
|
University of California, San Diego
2 publications, 0.79%
|
|
Mayo Clinic
2 publications, 0.79%
|
|
University of Lleida
2 publications, 0.79%
|
|
City of Hope National Medical Center
2 publications, 0.79%
|
|
Alfaisal University
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Istanbul University
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Istanbul University Cerrahpasa
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
University of Health Sciences, Turkey
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Necmettin Erbakan University
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Indian Institute of Management Bangalore
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Christian Medical College, Vellore
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Post graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Rajasthan University of Health Sciences
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Manipal Academy of Higher Education
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
University of Genoa
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Mohanlal Sukhadia University
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
University Hospital Heidelberg
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Sapienza University of Rome
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Geneva University Hospitals
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
University of Bologna
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Medical University of Vienna
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Imperial College London
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Aarhus University
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
University of Oslo
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Oslo University Hospital
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
University of Palermo
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Novo Nordisk
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
University of Padua
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Chang Gung University
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
University of Perugia
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
National Cheng Kung University Hospital
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Universite Libre de Bruxelles
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
European Institute of Oncology
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Vita-Salute San Raffaele University
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
University of Siena
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Senese
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Macquarie University
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Alfred Health
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Royal Adelaide Hospital
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Tokyo Medical and Dental University
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Seoul National University Bundang Hospital
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Kyungpook National University
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Tufts University
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Newcastle University
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Osaka University
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
University of Crete
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
University of Patras
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Trinity College Dublin
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Hasselt University
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Leibniz University Hannover
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
University of Buenos Aires
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Albert Ludwig University of Freiburg
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
University Hospital Frankfurt
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
University Hospital Leipzig
1 publication, 0.4%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
|
Publishing organizations in 5 years
2
4
6
8
10
12
|
|
Odense University Hospital
11 publications, 8.53%
|
|
Lausanne University Hospital
9 publications, 6.98%
|
|
University of Tübingen
8 publications, 6.2%
|
|
University of Southern Denmark
7 publications, 5.43%
|
|
Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico
4 publications, 3.1%
|
|
Aarhus University Hospital
4 publications, 3.1%
|
|
St George Hospital and Community Health Service (Australia)
4 publications, 3.1%
|
|
Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University
3 publications, 2.33%
|
|
All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi
3 publications, 2.33%
|
|
Homi Bhabha National Institute
3 publications, 2.33%
|
|
Tata Memorial Centre
3 publications, 2.33%
|
|
University of New South Wales
3 publications, 2.33%
|
|
University of Verona
3 publications, 2.33%
|
|
National University of Singapore
3 publications, 2.33%
|
|
Ghent University Hospital
3 publications, 2.33%
|
|
University of Messina
3 publications, 2.33%
|
|
Paris Cité University
3 publications, 2.33%
|
|
University Hospital Tübingen
3 publications, 2.33%
|
|
Dokuz Eylül University
2 publications, 1.55%
|
|
University of Strasbourg
2 publications, 1.55%
|
|
University of Bern
2 publications, 1.55%
|
|
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
2 publications, 1.55%
|
|
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
2 publications, 1.55%
|
|
University of Oxford
2 publications, 1.55%
|
|
The Queen Elizabeth Hospital
2 publications, 1.55%
|
|
Ruhr University Bochum
2 publications, 1.55%
|
|
University of Tokyo
2 publications, 1.55%
|
|
Mayo Clinic
2 publications, 1.55%
|
|
University of Lleida
2 publications, 1.55%
|
|
City of Hope National Medical Center
2 publications, 1.55%
|
|
Herzen Moscow Oncology Research Institute
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Istanbul University
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Istanbul University Cerrahpasa
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
University of Health Sciences, Turkey
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Necmettin Erbakan University
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Christian Medical College, Vellore
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Post graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Rajasthan University of Health Sciences
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Manipal Academy of Higher Education
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
University of Genoa
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Ghent University
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Mohanlal Sukhadia University
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
University Hospital Heidelberg
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Karolinska Institute
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Sapienza University of Rome
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
University of Bologna
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Medical University of Vienna
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Imperial College London
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Aarhus University
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
University of Oslo
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Oslo University Hospital
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
University of Palermo
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Novo Nordisk
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
University of Padua
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Chang Gung University
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
University of Perugia
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
National Cheng Kung University Hospital
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Cancer Research Institute Ghent
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Universite Libre de Bruxelles
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
European Institute of Oncology
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Vita-Salute San Raffaele University
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
University of Siena
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Senese
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
University of Adelaide
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Macquarie University
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Alfred Health
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Royal Adelaide Hospital
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Tokyo Medical and Dental University
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Seoul National University Bundang Hospital
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Kyungpook National University
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Newcastle University
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Osaka University
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
University of Patras
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
University Hospital Regensburg
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Robert Bosch Hospital
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Paracelsus Medical University
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Thomas Jefferson University
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
National Center for Global Health and Medicine
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Gifu University
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
University of Porto
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Mayo Clinic in Florida
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
University of Zaragoza
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Teikyo Heisei University
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Erasmus University Medical Center
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Catharina Hospital
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
University of Calgary
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Reina Sofia Hospital
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Westchester Medical Center
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Université de Lille
1 publication, 0.78%
|
|
Show all (69 more) | |
2
4
6
8
10
12
|
Publishing countries
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
|
|
France
|
France, 40, 15.81%
France
40 publications, 15.81%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 37, 14.62%
Germany
37 publications, 14.62%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 23, 9.09%
Denmark
23 publications, 9.09%
|
USA
|
USA, 20, 7.91%
USA
20 publications, 7.91%
|
India
|
India, 20, 7.91%
India
20 publications, 7.91%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 16, 6.32%
United Kingdom
16 publications, 6.32%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 15, 5.93%
Australia
15 publications, 5.93%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 15, 5.93%
Switzerland
15 publications, 5.93%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 13, 5.14%
Singapore
13 publications, 5.14%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 12, 4.74%
Italy
12 publications, 4.74%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 11, 4.35%
Belgium
11 publications, 4.35%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 8, 3.16%
Saudi Arabia
8 publications, 3.16%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 6, 2.37%
Greece
6 publications, 2.37%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 6, 2.37%
Turkey
6 publications, 2.37%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 5, 1.98%
Spain
5 publications, 1.98%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 5, 1.98%
Japan
5 publications, 1.98%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 4, 1.58%
Sweden
4 publications, 1.58%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 3, 1.19%
Russia
3 publications, 1.19%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 3, 1.19%
Austria
3 publications, 1.19%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 3, 1.19%
Canada
3 publications, 1.19%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 2, 0.79%
Egypt
2 publications, 0.79%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 2, 0.79%
Ireland
2 publications, 0.79%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 2, 0.79%
Netherlands
2 publications, 0.79%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 2, 0.79%
Republic of Korea
2 publications, 0.79%
|
China
|
China, 1, 0.4%
China
1 publication, 0.4%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 1, 0.4%
Portugal
1 publication, 0.4%
|
Argentina
|
Argentina, 1, 0.4%
Argentina
1 publication, 0.4%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 1, 0.4%
Israel
1 publication, 0.4%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 1, 0.4%
Norway
1 publication, 0.4%
|
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
|
Publishing countries in 5 years
5
10
15
20
25
|
|
France
|
France, 24, 18.6%
France
24 publications, 18.6%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 16, 12.4%
Denmark
16 publications, 12.4%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 14, 10.85%
Germany
14 publications, 10.85%
|
India
|
India, 14, 10.85%
India
14 publications, 10.85%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 11, 8.53%
Switzerland
11 publications, 8.53%
|
USA
|
USA, 10, 7.75%
USA
10 publications, 7.75%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 10, 7.75%
United Kingdom
10 publications, 7.75%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 9, 6.98%
Italy
9 publications, 6.98%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 8, 6.2%
Singapore
8 publications, 6.2%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 7, 5.43%
Australia
7 publications, 5.43%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 7, 5.43%
Saudi Arabia
7 publications, 5.43%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 6, 4.65%
Turkey
6 publications, 4.65%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 5, 3.88%
Belgium
5 publications, 3.88%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 5, 3.88%
Spain
5 publications, 3.88%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 4, 3.1%
Greece
4 publications, 3.1%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 2, 1.55%
Russia
2 publications, 1.55%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 2, 1.55%
Austria
2 publications, 1.55%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 2, 1.55%
Egypt
2 publications, 1.55%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 2, 1.55%
Netherlands
2 publications, 1.55%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 2, 1.55%
Republic of Korea
2 publications, 1.55%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 2, 1.55%
Japan
2 publications, 1.55%
|
China
|
China, 1, 0.78%
China
1 publication, 0.78%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 1, 0.78%
Portugal
1 publication, 0.78%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 1, 0.78%
Israel
1 publication, 0.78%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 1, 0.78%
Ireland
1 publication, 0.78%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 1, 0.78%
Canada
1 publication, 0.78%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 1, 0.78%
Norway
1 publication, 0.78%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 1, 0.78%
Sweden
1 publication, 0.78%
|
5
10
15
20
25
|