Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
SCImago
Q1
WOS
Q1
Impact factor
4.2
SJR
0.929
CiteScore
6.7
Categories
Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Plant Science
Microbiology (medical)
Areas
Agricultural and Biological Sciences
Medicine
Years of issue
2015-2025
journal names
Journal of Fungi
J FUNGI
Top-3 citing journals

Journal of Fungi
(6949 citations)

Frontiers in Microbiology
(1506 citations)

Microorganisms
(1113 citations)
Top-3 organizations

Chiang Mai University
(101 publications)

University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
(83 publications)

Mae Fah Luang University
(81 publications)

Chiang Mai University
(101 publications)

University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
(83 publications)

Mae Fah Luang University
(81 publications)
Most cited in 5 years
Found
Publications found: 690
Q1

Assessing the readiness and feasibility to implement a model of care for spine disorders and related disability in Cross Lake, an Indigenous community in northern Manitoba, Canada: a research protocol
Bussières A., Passmore S., Kopansky-Giles D., Tavares P., Ward J., Ladwig J., Glazebrook C., Mior S., Atkinson-Graham M., Moss J., Robak N., Broeckelmann E., Monias D.A., Mckay D.Z., Hamilton H., et. al.
Abstract
Background
Since the 1990s, spine disorders have remained the leading cause of global disability, disproportionately affecting economically marginalized individuals, rural populations, women, and older people. Back pain related disability is projected to increase the most in remote regions where lifestyle and work are increasingly sedentary, yet resources and access to comprehensive healthcare is generally limited. To help tackle this worldwide health problem, World Spine Care Canada, and the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) launched a four-phase project aiming to address the profound gap between evidence-based spine care and routine care delivered to people with spine symptoms or concerns in communities that are medically underserved. Phase 1 conclusions and recommendations led to the development of a model of care that included a triaging system and spine care pathways that could be implemented and scaled in underserved communities around the world.
Methods
The current research protocol describes a site-specific customization and pre-implementation study (Phase 2), as well as a feasibility study (Phase 3) to be conducted in Cross Lake, an Indigenous community in northern Manitoba, Canada. Design: Observational pre-post design using a participatory mixed-methods approach. Relationship building with the community established through regular site visits will enable pre- and post-implementation data collection about the model of spine care and provisionally selected implementation strategies using a community health survey, chart reviews, qualitative interviews, and adoption surveys with key partners at the meso (community leaders) and micro (clinicians, patients, community residents) levels. Recruitment started in March 2023 and will end in March 2026. Surveys will be analyzed descriptively and interviews thematically. Findings will inform co-tailoring of implementation support strategies with project partners prior to evaluating the feasibility of the new spine care program.
Discussion
Knowledge generated from this study will provide essential guidance for scaling up, sustainability and impact (Phase 4) in other northern Canada regions and sites around the globe. It is hoped that implementing the GSCI model of care in Cross Lake will help to reduce the burden of spine problems and related healthcare costs for the local community, and serve as a scalable model for programs in other settings.
Q1

Public perception of chiropractic in the Taiwanese population: a cross-sectional survey
Chang H., de Luca K., Fernandez M., Quinton A.
Abstract
Background
Research on perception of chiropractic is abundant in Western contexts, yet sparse in Asia. This study aims to bridge this gap by examining the perceptions of chiropractic among Taiwanese adults, focusing on demographics, utilisation, beliefs, and understanding.
Methods
An adapted survey with 27 close-ended items was administered to assess Taiwanese adults’ perception of chiropractic. The electronic survey, using Qualtrics, was delivered worldwide via Taiwanese Facebook groups from January 31 to March 31, 2024. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies and cross tabulations, were performed.
Results
A total of 769 individuals were surveyed, with 475 participants providing complete data. Over half of the participants (62%) had never visited a chiropractor, but in those who had visited a chiropractor 78% reported satisfaction. Of 475 participants, 45% considered chiropractic care safe while 34% were unsure. Though almost half (42%) were unclear about what chiropractors do, most participants (67%) expressed interest in learning more. Among the 151 participants with prior experience of chiropractic care, the demographic profile was 54% women, and individuals aged 28 to 37 (44%), and those with an undergraduate degree (52%) were most common.
Conclusion
Overall, our study found a positive perception and high acceptance of chiropractic among the Taiwanese population; however, generalisability may be limited due to the risk of selection bias. An understanding of the chiropractic profession was notably limited. Hence, efforts are needed to enhance awareness of chiropractic accreditation, clinical competencies, and its potential role in public healthcare in Taiwan.
Q1

Development and preliminary validation of the Danish headache questionnaire
Dissing K.B., Jensen R.K., Christensen H.W., Jensen M.E., Lauridsen H.H.
Abstract
Background
The prevalence of headache disorders is imposing a growing burden on public health. Although most patients are seen in primary care, there is an absence of validated questionnaires designed to describe how clinicians manage patients with headache in primary care. The aim of this study was to develop a standardised headache questionnaire for use by primary care clinicians, covering diagnostic procedures, management strategies, and treatment modalities, and to assess the prevalence of consultations for headache in primary care.
Methods
The Danish Headache Questionnaire was developed through a three-phase process: a development phase, a content validation phase via iterative feedback, and a phase to create a generic English version. The Danish Headache Questionnaire includes a survey that covers diagnostic procedures, management strategies, and treatment modalities, and a logbook for tracking the prevalence of consultations for headaches. The questionnaire was tested by Danish chiropractors in primary care from 2020 to 2022.
Results
The Danish Headache Questionnaire underwent several modifications. The survey was expanded to include questions about the Danish profession-specific guideline for managing headaches, different headache types, medical history, radiographic imaging, and potential side effects. The logbook was revised to allow for the documentation of multiple headaches and included a separate form for recording the total number of consultations. The generic version was adapted by removing or adjusting profession-specific terms and questions to suit other clinical environments. The final Danish Headache Questionnaire is available in a generic and a chiropractic-specific format, and was translated to English through a cross-cultural adaptation process.
Conclusions
The Danish Headache Questionnaire has good content validity and is a feasible tool for assessing clinicians’ knowledge in managing patients with headaches and gathering data on headache prevalence in primary care. The generic version promotes a uniform approach and enables comparative analysis across different settings. The Danish Headache Questionnaire may be a valuable instrument guiding teaching a standardised assessment and for clinical assessment in primary care. Furthermore, it may have the potential to fill in gaps of knowledge which could improve the management of headache disorders in primary care.
Q1

A multi-level implementation strategy to increase adoption of chiropractic care for low back pain in primary care clinics: a randomized stepped-wedge pilot study protocol
Roseen E.J., Bussières A., Reichman R., Bora C., Trieu J., Austad K., Williams C., Fischer R.A., Parrilla D., Laird L.D., LaValley M., Evans R.L., Saper R.B., Morone N.E.
Abstract
Introduction
Limited adoption of first line treatments for low back pain (LBP) in primary care settings may contribute to an overreliance on pain medications by primary care providers (PCPs). While chiropractic care typically includes recommended nonpharmacologic approaches (e.g., manual therapy, exercise instruction, advice on self-care), implementation strategies to increase adoption of chiropractic care for LBP in primary care clinics are understudied, particularly in underserved communities.
Methods
We will use a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled pilot trial design to evaluate the feasibility of a multi-level implementation strategy to increase adoption of chiropractic care for LBP in primary care clinics at community health centers. Key barriers and facilitators identified by site champions and other key stakeholders will help us to develop and tailor implementation strategies including educational materials and meetings, developing a network of local chiropractors, and modifying the electronic health record to facilitate referrals. Three primary care clinics will be randomized to receive the implementation strategy first, second, or third over a fourteen-month study period. At our first clinic, we will have a four-month pre-implementation period, a two-month implementation deployment period, and a subsequent eight-month follow-up period. We will stagger the start of our implementation strategy, beginning in a new clinic every two months. We will evaluate the proportion of patients with LBP who receive a referral to chiropractic care in the first 21 days after their index visit with PCP. We will also evaluate adoption of other guideline concordant care (e.g., other nonpharmacologic treatments) and non-guideline concordant care (e.g., opioids, imaging) over the study period.
Discussion
LBP is currently the leading cause of disability worldwide. While there are several treatment options available for individuals with LBP, patients in underserved populations do not often access recommended nonpharmacologic treatment options such as chiropractic care. The results from this study will inform the development of practical implementation strategies that may improve access to chiropractic care for LBP in the primary care context. Furthermore, results may also inform policy changes needed to expand access to chiropractic care in underserved communities.
Clintrials.gov NCT#
NCT06104605.
Q1

Preliminary insights into the effects of spinal manipulation therapy of different force magnitudes on blood biomarkers of oxidative stress and pro-resolution of inflammation mediators
Duarte F.C., Funabashi M., Starmer D., Partata W.A.
Abstract
Background
Evidence has been reported that spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) leads to spine segmental hypoalgesia through neurophysiological and peripheral mechanisms related to regulating inflammatory biomarker function. However, these studies also showed substantial inter-individual variability in the biomarker responses. Such variability may be due to the incomplete understanding of the fundamental effects of force-based manipulations (e.g., patient-specific force-time characteristics) on a person’s physiology in health and disease. This study investigated the short-term effects of distinct SMT force-time characteristics on blood oxidative stress and pro-resolution of inflammation biomarkers.
Methods
Nineteen healthy adults between 18 and 45 years old were recruited between February and March 2020 before the COVID-19 pandemic and clustered into three groups: control (preload only), target total peak force of 400 N, and 800 N. A validated force-sensing table technology (FSTT®) determined the SMT force-time characteristics. Blood samples were collected at pre-intervention, immediately after SMT, and 20 min post-intervention. Parameters of the oxidant system (total oxidant status, lipid peroxidation and lipid hydroperoxide), the antioxidant system (total antioxidant capacity and bilirubin), and lipid-derived resolvin D1 were evaluated in plasma and erythrocytes through enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and colorimetric assays.
Results
The COVID-19 global pandemic impacted recruitment, and our pre-established target sample size could not be reached. As a result, there was a small sample size, which decreased the robustness of the statistical analysis. Despite the limitations, we observed that 400 N seemed to decrease systemic total oxidant status and lipid peroxidation biomarkers. However, 800 N appeared to transitorily increase these pro-oxidant parameters with a further transitory reduction in plasma total antioxidant capacity and resolvin D1 mediator.
Conclusion
Despite the small sample size, which elevates the risk of type II error (false negatives), and the interruption of recruitment caused by the pandemic, our findings appeared to indicate that different single SMT force-time characteristics presented contrasting effects on the systemic redox signalling biomarkers and pro-resolution of inflammation mediators in healthy participants. The findings need to be confirmed by further research; however, they provide baseline information and guidance for future studies in a clinical population.
Q1

Insights into how manual therapists incorporate the biopsychosocial-enactive model in the care of individuals with CLBP: a qualitative study
Bianchi M., Rossettini G., Cerritelli F., Esteves J.E.
Abstract
Background
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) presents a significant challenge for manual therapists. Recent advancements in pain research have highlighted the limitations of the traditional biomedical and biopsychosocial models, prompting the exploration of alternatives. The biopsychosocial-enactive (BPS-E) model has emerged as a promising alternative. This study aims to explore the application of the BPS-E model by manual therapists in managing CLBP and to initiate a meaningful dialogue about its use.
Methods
This study adhered to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. Guided by constructivist grounded theory, we conducted semi-structured interviews with ten manual therapists who are experts in the BPS-E model. Data collection, conceptualization, and analysis were systematically carried out to identify key themes and insights.
Results
The core theme identified was “The person-centred approach,” with three subthemes: “Opportunities in implementing the model”, “Utilizing and Integrating Diverse Skills for Holistic Care”, and “Challenges in implementing the model”.
Conclusion
This study provides insights into how manual therapists incorporate the BPS-E model in their practice, demonstrating its advantages over the traditional biopsychosocial model. The findings highlight the need for further research and training to effectively implement the BPS-E model in clinical settings. This research begins an essential discussion on the potential of the BPS-E model to enhance care for CLBP patients.
Q1

Supported biopsychosocial self-management for back-related leg pain: a randomized feasibility study integrating a whole person perspective
Leininger B., Evans R., Greco C.M., Hanson L., Schulz C., Schneider M., Connett J., Keefe F., Glick R.M., Bronfort G.
Abstract
Background
There is limited high-quality research examining conservative treatments for back-related leg pain (BRLP). This feasibility study was done in preparation for a full-scale trial comparing a whole-person supported self-management intervention to medical care for chronic BRLP.
Methods
Participants were randomized to 12 weeks of individualized supported self-management delivered by physical therapists and chiropractors or medical care consisting of guideline-based pharmacologic care. Supported self-management was based on a behavioral model that used a whole person approach to enhance participants capabilities, opportunities, and motivations to engage in self-care. It combined BRLP education with psychosocial strategies (e.g., relaxed breathing, progressive muscle relaxation, guided imagery, communication skills) and physical modalities such as exercise and spinal manipulation therapy. Providers were trained to address participants’ individualized needs and use behavior change and motivational communication techniques to develop a therapeutic alliance to facilitate self-management. Feasibility was assessed using pre-specified targets for recruitment and enrollment, intervention delivery, and data collection over the six-month study period. In addition, areas for potential refinement and optimization of processes and protocols for the full-scale trial were assessed.
Results
We met or exceeded nearly all feasibility targets. Forty-two participants were enrolled over a six-month period in 2022 and very few individuals declined participation due to preferences for one treatment. All but one participant received treatment and 95% of participants attended the minimum number of visits (self-management = 6, medical care = 2). At 12 weeks, 95% of participants in the self-management group reported engaging in self-management practices learned in the program and 77% of medical care participants reported taking medications as prescribed. Satisfaction with the self-management intervention was high with 85% of participants reporting satisfaction with the program overall. Self-management intervention providers delivered all required activities at 72% of visits. Providers also noted some challenges navigating the shared decision-making process and deciding what self-management tools to prioritize. Over the six-month study period, completion rates were 91% for monthly surveys and 86% for weekly surveys.
Conclusion
We were able to demonstrate that a full-scale randomized trial comparing a whole-person supported self-management intervention to medical care for chronic BRLP is feasible and identified important areas for optimization.
Q1

Patient preferences for chiropractors’ attire: a cross-sectional study of UQTR university-based chiropractic clinic
Leduc L., Théroux J., Marois C., Lavigne G., Blanchette M.
Abstract
Background
A significant body of research has examined how the attire of physicians and nurses affects patients’ perceptions, preferences, and outcomes. However, limited research has focused on the clothing worn by other health professionals, such as chiropractors. The present study aims to explore patients’ preferences and perceptions of chiropractors’ attire.
Methods
Using a cross-sectional image-based procedure, new patients to a university clinic were questioned regarding their preferences for four different attires (casual, formal, scrub, and white coat) worn by both a male and a female chiropractor. Patients also reported their perceptions in terms of chiropractors’ knowledge, trustworthiness, competence, professionalism, and comfortable for each photograph.
Results
From August 10, 2022, to January 23, 2023, 75 new patients participated in the study. Results indicated a strong preference for scrubs for both male and female chiropractors. Chiropractors in scrubs were also seen as more knowledgeable, trustworthy, competent, and professional, and comfortable. This was closely followed by those wearing white coats and formal attire. Notably, the white coat worn by the female chiropractor received significantly more positive ratings than when worn by her male counterpart.
Conclusion
In conclusion, our findings suggest that chiropractors’ attire influences patients’ perceptions and should be considered in the development of dress codes for public and private clinics. Further research is essential to understand better how the gender and age of care providers affect patient evaluations.
Q1

'Which treatment do you believe you received?' A randomised blinding feasibility trial of spinal manual therapy
Muñoz Laguna J., Kurmann A., Hofstetter L., Nyantakyi E., Braun J., Clack L., Bang H., Farshad M., Foster N.E., Puhan M.A., Hincapié C.A., Mühlemann M., Caviezel C., Ehrler M., Häusler M., et. al.
Abstract
Background
Blinding is essential for mitigating biases in trials of low back pain (LBP). Our main objectives were to assess the feasibility of blinding: (1) participants randomly allocated to active or placebo spinal manual therapy (SMT), and (2) outcome assessors. We also explored blinding by levels of SMT lifetime experience and recent LBP, and factors contributing to beliefs about the assigned intervention.
Methods
A two-parallel-arm, single-centre, placebo-controlled, blinding feasibility trial. Adults were randomised to active SMT (n = 40) or placebo SMT (n = 41). Participants attended two study visits for their assigned intervention, on average seven days apart. The primary outcome was participant blinding (beliefs about assigned intervention) using the Bang blinding index (BI) at two study visits. The Bang BI is arm-specific, chance-corrected, and ranges from − 1 (all incorrect beliefs) to 1 (all correct beliefs), with 0 indicating equal proportions of correct and incorrect beliefs. Secondary outcomes included factors contributing to beliefs about the assigned intervention.
Results
Of 85 adults screened, 81 participants were randomised (41 [51%] with SMT lifetime experience; 29 [39%] with recent LBP), and 80 (99%) completed follow-up. At study visit 1, 50% of participants in the active SMT arm (Bang BI: 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.26 to 0.74]) and 37% in the placebo SMT arm (0.37 [95% CI, 0.10 to 0.63]) had a correct belief about their assigned intervention, beyond chance. At study visit 2, BIs were 0.36 (0.08 to 0.64) and 0.29 (0.01 to 0.57) for participants in the active and placebo SMT arms, respectively. BIs among outcome assessors suggested adequate blinding at both study visits (active SMT: 0.08 [− 0.05 to 0.20] and 0.03 [− 0.11 to 0.16]; placebo SMT: − 0.12 [− 0.24 to 0.00] and − 0.07 [− 0.21 to 0.07]). BIs varied by participant levels of SMT lifetime experience and recent LBP. Participants and outcome assessors described different factors contributing to their beliefs.
Conclusions
Adequate blinding of participants assigned to active SMT may not be feasible with the intervention protocol studied, whereas blinding of participants in the placebo SMT arm may be feasible. Blinding of outcome assessors seemed adequate. Further methodological work on blinding of SMT is needed.
Trial registration number
NCT05778396.
Q1

Chiropractic international research collaborative (CIRCuit): the development of a new practice-based research network, including the demographics, practice, and clinical management characteristics of clinician participants
Young K.J., Aspinall S., Mior S., Gliedt J., Spencer J., Børsheim C., Nash J., Ricci M., Shurr J., Axén I.
Abstract
Objectives
To describe the structure and development of a new international, chiropractic, practice-based research network (PBRN), the Chiropractic International Research Collaborative (CIRCuit), as well as the demographic, practice, and clinical management characteristics of its clinician participants. An electronic survey was used to collect information on their demographics, practice, and clinical management characteristics from clinicians from 17 October through 28 November 2022. Descriptive statistics were used to report the results.
Background
PBRNs are an increasingly popular way of facilitating clinic-based studies. They provide the opportunity to collaboratively develop research projects involving researchers, clinicians, patients and support groups. We are unaware of any international PBRNs, or any that have a steering group comprised of equal numbers of clinicians representing the different international regions.
Results
77 chiropractors responded to the survey (0.7% of EBCN-FB members). 48 were men (62%), 29 women (38%). Thirty-six (47%) were in North America, 18 (23%) in Europe, and 15 (19%) in Oceania. Participants reported predominantly treating musculoskeletal issues, often with high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation (95%), but also with soft tissue therapy (95%), exercise (95%), and other home care (up to 100%).
Methods
The development of CIRCuit is described narratively. Members of the Evidence-Based Chiropractic Network Facebook group (EBCN-FB) were invited to become clinician participants by participating in the survey.
Conclusions
This paper describes the development of a new PBRN for chiropractors. It offers a unique opportunity to facilitate the engagement of clinical chiropractors with research, as well as for academics to readily be able to access an international cohort of clinicians to collaboratively develop and conduct research. Although the results of the survey are not statistically generalisable, the initial cohort of CIRCuit clinician participants use similar techniques on similar types of conditions as the profession at large. The international structure is unique among PBRNs and offers the opportunity to help develop innovative research projects.
Q1

The association between individual radiographic findings and improvement after chiropractic spinal manipulation and home exercise among older adults with back-related disability: a secondary analysis
Maiers M.J., Albertson A.K., Major C., Mendenhall H., Petrie C.P.
Abstract
Background
Some chiropractors use spinal x-rays to inform care, but the relationship between radiographic findings and outcomes is unclear. This study examined the association between radiographic findings and 30% improvement in back-related disability in older adults after receiving 12 weeks of chiropractic spinal manipulation and home exercise instruction.
Methods
This IRB-approved secondary analysis used randomized trial data of community-dwelling adults age ≥ 65 with chronic spinal pain and disability. Data were collected during the parent trial between January 2010-December 2014. The primary outcome of the parent study was ≥ 30% improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 12 weeks, a clinically important response to care. In this secondary analysis, two chiropractic radiologists independently assessed digital lumbar radiographs for pre-specified anatomic, degenerative, and alignment factors; differences were adjudicated. The unadjusted association between baseline radiographic factors and 30% ODI improvement was determined using chi-square tests.
Results
From the parent trial, 120 adults with baseline lumbar radiographs were included in this study. Mean age was 70.4 years (range 65–81); 59.2% were female. Mean baseline disability (ODI = 25.6) and back pain (5.2, 0–10 scale) were moderate. Disc degeneration (53.3% moderate, 13.3% severe), anterolisthesis (53.3%), retrolisthesis (36.6%) and scoliosis (35.0%) were common among the participant sample. After 12-weeks of treatment, 51 (42.5%) participants achieved 30% improvement in back disability. No alignment, degenerative, or anatomic factors were associated with ODI improvement at 12 weeks (all p > 0.05), regardless of severity of radiographic findings.
Conclusion
We found no association between a predetermined subset of radiographic findings and improvement in back-related disability among this sample of older adults. As such, this study provides preliminary data suggesting that imaging may be unhelpful for predicting response to chiropractic spinal manipulation and home exercise.
Q1

Provider kinematic strategies during the delivery of spinal manipulation and mobilization: a scoping review of the literature
Svoboda K., Howarth S.J., Funabashi M., Gorrell L.M.
Abstract
Background
Spinal manipulation (MAN) and mobilization (MOB) are biomechanically different yet both elicit pain reduction and increased range of motion. Previous investigations have focused on quantifying kinetics (e.g., applied forces) or, recipient kinematics (i.e., movements) during MAN and MOB. While these studies provide valuable information, they do not report on the strategies adopted by providers when performing the complex motor tasks of MAN and MOB. This review sought to synthesise the literature reporting on provider kinematics during the delivery of MAN and MOB.
Methods
This scoping literature review is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) statement. MEDLINE (Ovid), PsychINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, PEDro, ICL and CINAHL databases were searched from inception to September 2023 for terms relating to provider kinematics during the delivery of MAN and MOB. Data were extracted and reported descriptively, including: general study characteristics, number and characteristics of individuals who delivered/received MAN and/or MOB, region treated, equipment used and kinematic parameters of the individual delivering the procedure.
Results
Of 4,844 records identified, five (0.1%) fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. Of these, provider kinematics were reported for the delivery of MAN in four (80%) and for the delivery of MOB in one (20%) article. Practitioners applied the procedure in all (100%) and students in one (20%) study. Spinal regions treated were: lumbar (n = 4), thoracic (n = 2) and cervical (n = 1). Data were reported heterogeneously but were most commonly captured using either video or motion capture equipment (n = 4, 80%). The direction of applied force was fully reported in one (20%) and only partially reported (one spinal region) in another study.
Conclusions
There are a small number of studies reporting heterogeneously on provider kinematics during the delivery of MAN and MOB. Clear reporting of the procedure from a biomechanical perspective and of the measurement equipment used could enable future meta-analysis of provider kinematic data, the use of provider kinematic data in the development of technique skills curricula and could feasibly be used to mitigate risk of injury for providers.
Q1

Diagnostic imaging in the management of older adults with low back pain: analysis from the BAck Complaints in Elders: Chiropractic – Australia cohort study
Jenkins H.J., Grace K., Young A., Parker F., Hartvigsen J., Rubinstein S.M., French S.D., de Luca K.
Abstract
Background
Diagnostic imaging is commonly used in the management of low back pain (LBP), with approximately one-quarter of those who present to primary care referred for imaging. Current estimates of imaging frequency commonly exclude older adults; however, pathology detected with imaging (e.g., osteoporosis, cancer) may occur more frequently in older populations. The aims of this study were to: (i) determine the frequency and forms of diagnostic imaging use in older adults presenting for chiropractic care for LBP in Australia; (ii) describe participant characteristics associated with imaging use; and (iii) describe the types of radiographic findings.
Methods
Data were collected from the BAck Complaints in Elders: Chiropractic-Australia (BACE: C-A) study, a 12-month, prospective cohort study of adults aged ≥ 55 years with a new episode of LBP. Self-reported frequency of imaging use (baseline, 2 and 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months) was reported descriptively by imaging modality. Imaging reports were obtained, and imaging findings were independently extracted and categorised. Baseline characteristics were assessed for differences in those who received imaging compared to those who did not. Proportions of imaging use and imaging findings were presented descriptively with 95% confidence intervals.
Results
The BACE: C-A cohort comprised 217 participants of whom 60.8% reported receiving diagnostic imaging for their current episode of LBP. X-ray was performed most (44.7%), followed by computed tomography (CT) (30.8%). Participants receiving imaging reported higher low back disability, more healthcare use for LBP, more frequent leg pain, more suspected serious pathology, and stronger beliefs that imaging was important. Degenerative changes were the most common imaging finding (96.6%). Pathology of possible clinical significance, including compression fracture or suspected osteoporosis, was present in 15.5% of participants.
Conclusion
Three out of five older adults with LBP who sought chiropractic care received imaging over one-year. Participants receiving imaging tended to have more complex presentations (e.g., more disability, suspected underlying pathology) or stronger beliefs that imaging was necessary for the management of LBP. Degenerative changes were the most common imaging finding. Pathology of potential clinical relevance was present on approximately 15% of imaging reports received. No conditions requiring immediate medical attention were reported.
Q1

Factors that contribute to the perceived treatment effect of spinal manipulative therapy in a chiropractic teaching clinic: a qualitative study
Boylan P.
Abstract
Background
Despite the progress made in better understanding the potential mechanisms of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and its treatment effects, a knowledge gap continues to exist when identifying the specific factors that contribute to the perceived treatment effect associated with SMT. The purpose of the study was to explore the perceptions of chiropractic clinicians, interns, and patients regarding what factors during a doctor-patient encounter contribute to the perceived treatment effect associated with SMT.
Methods
This study used convenience sampling to enroll participants from a chiropractic teaching clinic in the United States. Semi-structured interviews were used as the main form of data collection, which took place from January-April 2024. The data was subsequently analyzed using thematic analysis and organized into themes through an iterative open coding process.
Results
Six rounds of interviews were conducted for a total of 18 interviews. Each round consisted of one patient who received treatment including SMT, one intern who performed the treatment, and one clinician who oversaw the treatment. After analyzing the interview data, the following five themes were identified: Treatment Outcome, Therapeutic Alliance, Adjunctive Therapies, Significance of Cavitation, and Psychomotor Skills. Each theme consisted of multiple subthemes which were mentioned by the participant groups at varying frequencies. Patients frequently mentioned the importance of improvement in symptoms following treatment, as well as good communication skills and the use of adjunctive therapies. Interns valued functional change following treatment, while clinicians focused on confidence levels and psychomotor skills. There were differing views on the significance of cavitation, ranging from indifference to an indication of a successful treatment.
Conclusion
This qualitative study identified several themes which describe factors that may contribute to the perceived effect associated with SMT. In addition to the psychomotor skills required to perform SMT, educators and practitioners should consider factors such as the therapeutic alliance between patient and provider, use of adjunctive therapies, and assessment of the outcome associated with the intervention.
Q1

Cross cultural adaptation and validation of the Hindi version of foot function index
Sidiq M., Chahal A., Sharma J., Rai R.H., Kashoo F.Z., Jayavelu J., Kashyap N., Vajrala K.R., Veeragoudhaman T.S., Arasu V., Janakiraman B.
Abstract
Background
The Foot Function Index (FFI) is a reliable and widely used standardized questionnaire that measures the impact of foot pathology on function. With 571 million Hindi-speaking people living globally and an increasing incidence of foot-related pathologies, it is imperative to cross-culturally translate and adapt a Hindi version of the FFI (FFI-Hi). We aimed to translate, cross-cultural adapt, and psychometrically test the FFI-Hi for use in Hindi-speaking individuals with foot conditions.
Methods
The translation of FFI-Hi was performed according to guidelines given by MAPI Research Trust. A total of 223 Hindi-speaking participants afflicted with foot conditions completed the FFI-Hi alongside the Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire. The study duration spanned between October 2023 and January 2024. The initial phase was the translation and adaptation of FFI to cultural context. Followed by testing of psychometric properties involving of 133 participants for the test-retest reliability of FFI-Hi after a 7-day interval.
Results
The mean age of the participants was 47.10 (± 8.1) years. The majority of the participants were male (n = 148, 66.4%) and the most common foot condition was plantar fasciopathy (n = 91, 40.8%). The mean score of FF-Hi was 33.7 ± 11.7. The internal consistency of FFI-Hi was good with the Cronbach’s alpha (α) value of 0.891 and excellent reproducibility with the intra-class correlation of 0.90. The 95% minimal detectable change (MCD) and the standard error of measurement of the FFI-Hi was 22.02 and 7.94 respectively. Convergent validity between FFI-Hi subscales and SF-36 domains was moderate. Factor analysis corroborated the multidimensional nature of the FFI-Hi.
Conclusion
The FFI-Hindi version was successfully cross-culturally adapted, translated and demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties to be used in clinical practice and research. Further, the context-specific Hindi language version of FFI will enhance the utility of FFI in foot function evaluation and remove language barrier in patients reporting disability and activity limitation related to foot conditions.
Registration
Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2023/07/055734).
Top-100
Citing journals
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
|
|
Journal of Fungi
6949 citations, 11.3%
|
|
Frontiers in Microbiology
1506 citations, 2.45%
|
|
Microorganisms
1113 citations, 1.81%
|
|
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
854 citations, 1.39%
|
|
Mycoses
821 citations, 1.33%
|
|
Medical Mycology
640 citations, 1.04%
|
|
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
593 citations, 0.96%
|
|
Plants
575 citations, 0.93%
|
|
Scientific Reports
539 citations, 0.88%
|
|
Antibiotics
491 citations, 0.8%
|
|
Pathogens
485 citations, 0.79%
|
|
Microbiology spectrum
472 citations, 0.77%
|
|
Mycopathologia
457 citations, 0.74%
|
|
Molecules
455 citations, 0.74%
|
|
Frontiers in Plant Science
429 citations, 0.7%
|
|
MycoKeys
354 citations, 0.58%
|
|
Phytotaxa
351 citations, 0.57%
|
|
mBio
335 citations, 0.54%
|
|
Current Fungal Infection Reports
317 citations, 0.52%
|
|
Frontiers in Immunology
292 citations, 0.47%
|
|
Agronomy
286 citations, 0.46%
|
|
Cureus
282 citations, 0.46%
|
|
International Journal of Biological Macromolecules
269 citations, 0.44%
|
|
Foods
268 citations, 0.44%
|
|
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
266 citations, 0.43%
|
|
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
252 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Fungal Diversity
251 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Horticulturae
242 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Journal de Mycologie Medicale
240 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
240 citations, 0.39%
|
|
PLoS ONE
223 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Heliyon
221 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Brazilian Journal of Microbiology
216 citations, 0.35%
|
|
Infection and Drug Resistance
204 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Pharmaceutics
199 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Fermentation
198 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Fungal Biology
196 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Archives of Microbiology
194 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Microbiological Research
189 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Frontiers in Fungal Biology
180 citations, 0.29%
|
|
World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology
174 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Science of the Total Environment
173 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology
165 citations, 0.27%
|
|
BMC Infectious Diseases
164 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Applied Sciences (Switzerland)
160 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Mycological Progress
159 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Forests
157 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
156 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Agriculture (Switzerland)
143 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Life
142 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Biological Control
141 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Plant Disease
138 citations, 0.22%
|
|
mSphere
137 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Nature Communications
137 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Postharvest Biology and Technology
135 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Food Bioscience
134 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Sustainability
134 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Toxins
133 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Future Microbiology
132 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
132 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Microbial Pathogenesis
131 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Current Microbiology
127 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Clinical Microbiology Reviews
124 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Pest Management Science
119 citations, 0.19%
|
|
European Journal of Plant Pathology
118 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
118 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Journal of Applied Microbiology
117 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Biology
116 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Mycology
114 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Journal of Clinical Medicine
112 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Medical Mycology Case Reports
111 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology
110 citations, 0.18%
|
|
PLoS Pathogens
109 citations, 0.18%
|
|
New Zealand Journal of Botany
109 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease
109 citations, 0.18%
|
|
BMC Microbiology
108 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
108 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Virulence
107 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Journal of Plant Pathology
106 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Diagnostics
106 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Fungal Genetics and Biology
105 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
105 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Expert Review of Anti-Infective Therapy
105 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
105 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Pharmaceuticals
104 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Frontiers in Medicine
103 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Clinical Infectious Diseases
101 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Microbial Cell Factories
101 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Fungal Biology Reviews
98 citations, 0.16%
|
|
PeerJ
97 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Bioresource Technology
96 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Biomolecules
96 citations, 0.16%
|
|
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
95 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Mycobiology
92 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology
90 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Diversity
90 citations, 0.15%
|
|
ACS Omega
88 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Insects
87 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Phytopathology
85 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Marine Drugs
85 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
|
Citing publishers
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
|
|
MDPI
15946 citations, 25.92%
|
|
Elsevier
10543 citations, 17.14%
|
|
Springer Nature
9851 citations, 16.01%
|
|
Wiley
3914 citations, 6.36%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
3866 citations, 6.28%
|
|
Taylor & Francis
2432 citations, 3.95%
|
|
American Society for Microbiology
1874 citations, 3.05%
|
|
Oxford University Press
1778 citations, 2.89%
|
|
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
1253 citations, 2.04%
|
|
American Chemical Society (ACS)
870 citations, 1.41%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
559 citations, 0.91%
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
458 citations, 0.74%
|
|
Pensoft Publishers
391 citations, 0.64%
|
|
Magnolia Press
353 citations, 0.57%
|
|
Scientific Societies
327 citations, 0.53%
|
|
SAGE
325 citations, 0.53%
|
|
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
289 citations, 0.47%
|
|
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
279 citations, 0.45%
|
|
IntechOpen
237 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Microbiology Society
181 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
168 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
145 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
142 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Medknow
136 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Research Square Platform LLC
136 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Pleiades Publishing
118 citations, 0.19%
|
|
IOP Publishing
117 citations, 0.19%
|
|
PeerJ
108 citations, 0.18%
|
|
BMJ
94 citations, 0.15%
|
|
King Saud University
88 citations, 0.14%
|
|
F1000 Research
88 citations, 0.14%
|
|
SciELO
79 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
76 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
72 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Mary Ann Liebert
57 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Korean Society of Mycology
54 citations, 0.09%
|
|
52 citations, 0.08%
|
|
S. Karger AG
50 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Portland Press
48 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Baishideng Publishing Group
48 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Canadian Science Publishing
46 citations, 0.07%
|
|
eLife Sciences Publications
45 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Annual Reviews
44 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
41 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Scientific Scholar
41 citations, 0.07%
|
|
International Mycological Association
39 citations, 0.06%
|
|
European Respiratory Society (ERS)
39 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
38 citations, 0.06%
|
|
AIP Publishing
37 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Begell House
36 citations, 0.06%
|
|
The Japanese Society for Medical Mycology
32 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Westerdijk Fungal Biodiversity Institute
31 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Oriental Scientific Publishing Company
31 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishing
31 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Asociacion Espanola de Micologia
30 citations, 0.05%
|
|
International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS)
28 citations, 0.05%
|
|
EDP Sciences
27 citations, 0.04%
|
|
American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
26 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Spandidos Publications
26 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
26 citations, 0.04%
|
|
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
25 citations, 0.04%
|
|
A and V Publications
24 citations, 0.04%
|
|
The Royal Society
23 citations, 0.04%
|
|
The Russian Academy of Sciences
23 citations, 0.04%
|
|
22 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Massachusetts Medical Society
21 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical
21 citations, 0.03%
|
|
South Florida Publishing LLC
21 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Fundacao Oswaldo Cruz
19 citations, 0.03%
|
|
American Medical Association (AMA)
19 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Interregional Association for Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
19 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Hans Publishers
19 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Eco-Vector LLC
18 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Veterinary World
18 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Han-Gug Misaengmul Hag-hoe/The Microbiological Society of Korea
18 citations, 0.03%
|
|
17 citations, 0.03%
|
|
IGI Global
17 citations, 0.03%
|
|
The Company of Biologists
16 citations, 0.03%
|
|
CSIRO Publishing
16 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Tsinghua University Press
15 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Geophysical Union
15 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Academic Journals
15 citations, 0.02%
|
|
PAGEPress Publications
15 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology
14 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Akademizdatcenter Nauka
14 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Korean Society for Microbiology and Biotechnology
14 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Korean Society for Biotechnology and Bioengineering
13 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Mark Allen Group
13 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Remedium, Ltd.
13 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Media Sphere Publishing House
13 citations, 0.02%
|
|
IWA Publishing
12 citations, 0.02%
|
|
National Library of Serbia
12 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Japanese Society of Internal Medicine
12 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
11 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Veterinary Medical Association
11 citations, 0.02%
|
|
The American Association of Immunologists
11 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Emerald
10 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Physiological Society
10 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Thoracic Society
10 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Polish Society of Microbiologists
10 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
|
Publishing organizations
20
40
60
80
100
120
|
|
Chiang Mai University
101 publications, 1.87%
|
|
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
83 publications, 1.54%
|
|
Mae Fah Luang University
81 publications, 1.5%
|
|
Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre
78 publications, 1.45%
|
|
University of Manchester
72 publications, 1.33%
|
|
Canisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis
64 publications, 1.19%
|
|
Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences
57 publications, 1.06%
|
|
Zhejiang University
56 publications, 1.04%
|
|
King Saud University
52 publications, 0.96%
|
|
Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University
52 publications, 0.96%
|
|
Innsbruck Medical University
52 publications, 0.96%
|
|
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
51 publications, 0.95%
|
|
Guizhou University
50 publications, 0.93%
|
|
Beijing Forestry University
49 publications, 0.91%
|
|
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
48 publications, 0.89%
|
|
Universidade Estadual Paulista
43 publications, 0.8%
|
|
National Autonomous University of Mexico
42 publications, 0.78%
|
|
China Agricultural University
40 publications, 0.74%
|
|
Huazhong Agricultural University
39 publications, 0.72%
|
|
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre
37 publications, 0.69%
|
|
South China Agricultural University
36 publications, 0.67%
|
|
Stanford University
35 publications, 0.65%
|
|
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
35 publications, 0.65%
|
|
University of Lisbon
33 publications, 0.61%
|
|
Nanjing Forestry University
33 publications, 0.61%
|
|
University of Belgrade
32 publications, 0.59%
|
|
Yunnan University
31 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Northwest University
30 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Royal Society of Thailand
30 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Northwest A&F University
30 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Zhongkai University of Agriculture and Engineering
29 publications, 0.54%
|
|
University of Sydney
29 publications, 0.54%
|
|
Mahidol University
29 publications, 0.54%
|
|
Nanjing Agricultural University
28 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Shandong Agricultural University
28 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Qujing Normal University
28 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Institut Pasteur
28 publications, 0.52%
|
|
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
27 publications, 0.5%
|
|
Yunnan Agricultural University
27 publications, 0.5%
|
|
Aix-Marseille University
26 publications, 0.48%
|
|
Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico
26 publications, 0.48%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Madison
26 publications, 0.48%
|
|
Federal University of Goiás
26 publications, 0.48%
|
|
University of Copenhagen
25 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Northeast Forestry University
25 publications, 0.46%
|
|
National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
25 publications, 0.46%
|
|
University of Debrecen
25 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
25 publications, 0.46%
|
|
University of Exeter
25 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Tel Aviv University
24 publications, 0.44%
|
|
Paris Cité University
24 publications, 0.44%
|
|
Hans Knöll Institute (Leibniz Institute for Natural Product Research and Infection Biology)
24 publications, 0.44%
|
|
Al-Azhar University
24 publications, 0.44%
|
|
University of Turin
23 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Medical University of Graz
23 publications, 0.43%
|
|
University of Bari Aldo Moro
23 publications, 0.43%
|
|
University of California, San Diego
23 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Southwest Forestry University
23 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
23 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Lanzhou University
23 publications, 0.43%
|
|
University of Rovira i Virgili
23 publications, 0.43%
|
|
King Abdulaziz University
22 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Catania
22 publications, 0.41%
|
|
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
22 publications, 0.41%
|
|
Gansu Agricultural University
22 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Minnesota
22 publications, 0.41%
|
|
University of Göttingen
22 publications, 0.41%
|
|
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
21 publications, 0.39%
|
|
Medical University of Vienna
21 publications, 0.39%
|
|
Kasetsart University
21 publications, 0.39%
|
|
Friedrich Schiller University Jena
21 publications, 0.39%
|
|
McMaster University
21 publications, 0.39%
|
|
German Center for Infection Research
21 publications, 0.39%
|
|
Ghent University
20 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of Naples Federico II
20 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of Milan
20 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Imperial College London
20 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Stony Brook University
20 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Cornell University
20 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Westmead Hospital
20 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Hainan University
20 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of Valencia
20 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of Florida
20 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Southwest University
19 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Sorbonne University
19 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
19 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
19 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Chang Gung University
18 publications, 0.33%
|
|
University of California, Berkeley
18 publications, 0.33%
|
|
University of Arizona
18 publications, 0.33%
|
|
Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria
18 publications, 0.33%
|
|
University of Texas at San Antonio
18 publications, 0.33%
|
|
Lomonosov Moscow State University
17 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Taif University
17 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust
17 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Minjiang University
17 publications, 0.32%
|
|
University of Pretoria
17 publications, 0.32%
|
|
National Science and Technology Development Agency
17 publications, 0.32%
|
|
University of Aberdeen
17 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Cologne University Hospital
17 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
20
40
60
80
100
120
|
Publishing organizations in 5 years
20
40
60
80
100
120
|
|
Chiang Mai University
101 publications, 2.02%
|
|
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
83 publications, 1.66%
|
|
Mae Fah Luang University
81 publications, 1.62%
|
|
Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre
62 publications, 1.24%
|
|
Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences
57 publications, 1.14%
|
|
Zhejiang University
56 publications, 1.12%
|
|
Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University
52 publications, 1.04%
|
|
Canisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis
52 publications, 1.04%
|
|
King Saud University
51 publications, 1.02%
|
|
Guizhou University
50 publications, 1%
|
|
Beijing Forestry University
49 publications, 0.98%
|
|
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
49 publications, 0.98%
|
|
Innsbruck Medical University
45 publications, 0.9%
|
|
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
44 publications, 0.88%
|
|
University of Manchester
42 publications, 0.84%
|
|
National Autonomous University of Mexico
41 publications, 0.82%
|
|
China Agricultural University
40 publications, 0.8%
|
|
Huazhong Agricultural University
39 publications, 0.78%
|
|
South China Agricultural University
36 publications, 0.72%
|
|
Universidade Estadual Paulista
35 publications, 0.7%
|
|
Nanjing Forestry University
33 publications, 0.66%
|
|
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
33 publications, 0.66%
|
|
University of Lisbon
32 publications, 0.64%
|
|
Stanford University
31 publications, 0.62%
|
|
Yunnan University
31 publications, 0.62%
|
|
University of Belgrade
31 publications, 0.62%
|
|
Northwest University
30 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Royal Society of Thailand
30 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Northwest A&F University
30 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Zhongkai University of Agriculture and Engineering
29 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Mahidol University
29 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Nanjing Agricultural University
28 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Shandong Agricultural University
28 publications, 0.56%
|
|
Qujing Normal University
28 publications, 0.56%
|
|
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
27 publications, 0.54%
|
|
Yunnan Agricultural University
27 publications, 0.54%
|
|
Aix-Marseille University
26 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Federal University of Goiás
26 publications, 0.52%
|
|
Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico
25 publications, 0.5%
|
|
University of Copenhagen
25 publications, 0.5%
|
|
University of Sydney
25 publications, 0.5%
|
|
Northeast Forestry University
25 publications, 0.5%
|
|
National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
25 publications, 0.5%
|
|
University of Debrecen
25 publications, 0.5%
|
|
University of Exeter
24 publications, 0.48%
|
|
Al-Azhar University
24 publications, 0.48%
|
|
Southwest Forestry University
23 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Lanzhou University
23 publications, 0.46%
|
|
University of Turin
22 publications, 0.44%
|
|
University of Bari Aldo Moro
22 publications, 0.44%
|
|
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
22 publications, 0.44%
|
|
Gansu Agricultural University
22 publications, 0.44%
|
|
University of Göttingen
22 publications, 0.44%
|
|
University of Rovira i Virgili
22 publications, 0.44%
|
|
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre
22 publications, 0.44%
|
|
King Abdulaziz University
21 publications, 0.42%
|
|
Medical University of Vienna
21 publications, 0.42%
|
|
Kasetsart University
21 publications, 0.42%
|
|
McMaster University
21 publications, 0.42%
|
|
German Center for Infection Research
21 publications, 0.42%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Madison
21 publications, 0.42%
|
|
Ghent University
20 publications, 0.4%
|
|
Medical University of Graz
20 publications, 0.4%
|
|
Imperial College London
20 publications, 0.4%
|
|
University of Catania
20 publications, 0.4%
|
|
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
20 publications, 0.4%
|
|
Hainan University
20 publications, 0.4%
|
|
Hans Knöll Institute (Leibniz Institute for Natural Product Research and Infection Biology)
20 publications, 0.4%
|
|
University of Valencia
20 publications, 0.4%
|
|
Southwest University
19 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Naples Federico II
19 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Friedrich Schiller University Jena
19 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Tel Aviv University
18 publications, 0.36%
|
|
University of Milan
18 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Chang Gung University
18 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
18 publications, 0.36%
|
|
University of Florida
18 publications, 0.36%
|
|
Lomonosov Moscow State University
17 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Taif University
17 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
17 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Minjiang University
17 publications, 0.34%
|
|
University of Pretoria
17 publications, 0.34%
|
|
National Science and Technology Development Agency
17 publications, 0.34%
|
|
University of California, Berkeley
17 publications, 0.34%
|
|
University of California, San Diego
17 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Institut Pasteur
17 publications, 0.34%
|
|
University of the Basque Country
17 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University
16 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Chongqing University
16 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Shandong Normal University
16 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Yangtze University
16 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Sorbonne University
16 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Sichuan Agricultural University
16 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Cornell University
16 publications, 0.32%
|
|
National Chung Hsing University
16 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Westmead Hospital
16 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Prince of Songkla University
16 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Zhejiang A&F University
16 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Henan Agricultural University
16 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research
16 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
20
40
60
80
100
120
|
Publishing countries
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
|
|
China
|
China, 1589, 29.45%
China
1589 publications, 29.45%
|
USA
|
USA, 852, 15.79%
USA
852 publications, 15.79%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 373, 6.91%
Spain
373 publications, 6.91%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 372, 6.9%
Brazil
372 publications, 6.9%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 318, 5.89%
Germany
318 publications, 5.89%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 278, 5.15%
Italy
278 publications, 5.15%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 267, 4.95%
United Kingdom
267 publications, 4.95%
|
France
|
France, 260, 4.82%
France
260 publications, 4.82%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 226, 4.19%
Thailand
226 publications, 4.19%
|
India
|
India, 192, 3.56%
India
192 publications, 3.56%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 167, 3.1%
Mexico
167 publications, 3.1%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 151, 2.8%
Netherlands
151 publications, 2.8%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 147, 2.72%
Saudi Arabia
147 publications, 2.72%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 144, 2.67%
Austria
144 publications, 2.67%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 124, 2.3%
Egypt
124 publications, 2.3%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 122, 2.26%
Canada
122 publications, 2.26%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 113, 2.09%
Japan
113 publications, 2.09%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 112, 2.08%
Portugal
112 publications, 2.08%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 112, 2.08%
Republic of Korea
112 publications, 2.08%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 106, 1.96%
Australia
106 publications, 1.96%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 91, 1.69%
Czech Republic
91 publications, 1.69%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 88, 1.63%
Colombia
88 publications, 1.63%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 87, 1.61%
Russia
87 publications, 1.61%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 84, 1.56%
Belgium
84 publications, 1.56%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 84, 1.56%
Greece
84 publications, 1.56%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 72, 1.33%
Israel
72 publications, 1.33%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 59, 1.09%
Switzerland
59 publications, 1.09%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 57, 1.06%
Hungary
57 publications, 1.06%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 54, 1%
South Africa
54 publications, 1%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 52, 0.96%
Poland
52 publications, 0.96%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 49, 0.91%
Denmark
49 publications, 0.91%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 48, 0.89%
New Zealand
48 publications, 0.89%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 45, 0.83%
Chile
45 publications, 0.83%
|
Argentina
|
Argentina, 44, 0.82%
Argentina
44 publications, 0.82%
|
Serbia
|
Serbia, 42, 0.78%
Serbia
42 publications, 0.78%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 42, 0.78%
Sweden
42 publications, 0.78%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 38, 0.7%
Malaysia
38 publications, 0.7%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 38, 0.7%
Turkey
38 publications, 0.7%
|
Slovakia
|
Slovakia, 35, 0.65%
Slovakia
35 publications, 0.65%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 34, 0.63%
Iran
34 publications, 0.63%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 33, 0.61%
Ireland
33 publications, 0.61%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 33, 0.61%
Pakistan
33 publications, 0.61%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 31, 0.57%
Finland
31 publications, 0.57%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 27, 0.5%
Nigeria
27 publications, 0.5%
|
Croatia
|
Croatia, 25, 0.46%
Croatia
25 publications, 0.46%
|
Oman
|
Oman, 24, 0.44%
Oman
24 publications, 0.44%
|
Romania
|
Romania, 21, 0.39%
Romania
21 publications, 0.39%
|
Sri Lanka
|
Sri Lanka, 19, 0.35%
Sri Lanka
19 publications, 0.35%
|
Estonia
|
Estonia, 18, 0.33%
Estonia
18 publications, 0.33%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 18, 0.33%
Singapore
18 publications, 0.33%
|
Cuba
|
Cuba, 17, 0.32%
Cuba
17 publications, 0.32%
|
Lithuania
|
Lithuania, 17, 0.32%
Lithuania
17 publications, 0.32%
|
Morocco
|
Morocco, 17, 0.32%
Morocco
17 publications, 0.32%
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenia, 17, 0.32%
Slovenia
17 publications, 0.32%
|
Uganda
|
Uganda, 17, 0.32%
Uganda
17 publications, 0.32%
|
Bangladesh
|
Bangladesh, 16, 0.3%
Bangladesh
16 publications, 0.3%
|
Vietnam
|
Vietnam, 16, 0.3%
Vietnam
16 publications, 0.3%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 16, 0.3%
Indonesia
16 publications, 0.3%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 15, 0.28%
Norway
15 publications, 0.28%
|
Ecuador
|
Ecuador, 15, 0.28%
Ecuador
15 publications, 0.28%
|
Tunisia
|
Tunisia, 14, 0.26%
Tunisia
14 publications, 0.26%
|
Lebanon
|
Lebanon, 13, 0.24%
Lebanon
13 publications, 0.24%
|
Philippines
|
Philippines, 13, 0.24%
Philippines
13 publications, 0.24%
|
UAE
|
UAE, 12, 0.22%
UAE
12 publications, 0.22%
|
Peru
|
Peru, 12, 0.22%
Peru
12 publications, 0.22%
|
French Guiana
|
French Guiana, 12, 0.22%
French Guiana
12 publications, 0.22%
|
Bulgaria
|
Bulgaria, 11, 0.2%
Bulgaria
11 publications, 0.2%
|
Kenya
|
Kenya, 10, 0.19%
Kenya
10 publications, 0.19%
|
Latvia
|
Latvia, 10, 0.19%
Latvia
10 publications, 0.19%
|
Uruguay
|
Uruguay, 10, 0.19%
Uruguay
10 publications, 0.19%
|
Ethiopia
|
Ethiopia, 10, 0.19%
Ethiopia
10 publications, 0.19%
|
Ukraine
|
Ukraine, 9, 0.17%
Ukraine
9 publications, 0.17%
|
Cameroon
|
Cameroon, 9, 0.17%
Cameroon
9 publications, 0.17%
|
Panama
|
Panama, 9, 0.17%
Panama
9 publications, 0.17%
|
Ghana
|
Ghana, 8, 0.15%
Ghana
8 publications, 0.15%
|
Costa Rica
|
Costa Rica, 8, 0.15%
Costa Rica
8 publications, 0.15%
|
Kuwait
|
Kuwait, 8, 0.15%
Kuwait
8 publications, 0.15%
|
Jordan
|
Jordan, 7, 0.13%
Jordan
7 publications, 0.13%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 6, 0.11%
Iraq
6 publications, 0.11%
|
Qatar
|
Qatar, 6, 0.11%
Qatar
6 publications, 0.11%
|
Kyrgyzstan
|
Kyrgyzstan, 6, 0.11%
Kyrgyzstan
6 publications, 0.11%
|
Nepal
|
Nepal, 6, 0.11%
Nepal
6 publications, 0.11%
|
Kazakhstan
|
Kazakhstan, 5, 0.09%
Kazakhstan
5 publications, 0.09%
|
Guatemala
|
Guatemala, 5, 0.09%
Guatemala
5 publications, 0.09%
|
Mauritius
|
Mauritius, 5, 0.09%
Mauritius
5 publications, 0.09%
|
Algeria
|
Algeria, 4, 0.07%
Algeria
4 publications, 0.07%
|
Georgia
|
Georgia, 4, 0.07%
Georgia
4 publications, 0.07%
|
Paraguay
|
Paraguay, 4, 0.07%
Paraguay
4 publications, 0.07%
|
Tanzania
|
Tanzania, 4, 0.07%
Tanzania
4 publications, 0.07%
|
Honduras
|
Honduras, 3, 0.06%
Honduras
3 publications, 0.06%
|
Cyprus
|
Cyprus, 3, 0.06%
Cyprus
3 publications, 0.06%
|
Luxembourg
|
Luxembourg, 3, 0.06%
Luxembourg
3 publications, 0.06%
|
Mozambique
|
Mozambique, 3, 0.06%
Mozambique
3 publications, 0.06%
|
Senegal
|
Senegal, 3, 0.06%
Senegal
3 publications, 0.06%
|
Sudan
|
Sudan, 3, 0.06%
Sudan
3 publications, 0.06%
|
Uzbekistan
|
Uzbekistan, 3, 0.06%
Uzbekistan
3 publications, 0.06%
|
Barbados
|
Barbados, 2, 0.04%
Barbados
2 publications, 0.04%
|
Burkina Faso
|
Burkina Faso, 2, 0.04%
Burkina Faso
2 publications, 0.04%
|
Venezuela
|
Venezuela, 2, 0.04%
Venezuela
2 publications, 0.04%
|
Laos
|
Laos, 2, 0.04%
Laos
2 publications, 0.04%
|
Show all (70 more) | |
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
|
Publishing countries in 5 years
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
|
|
China
|
China, 1579, 31.61%
China
1579 publications, 31.61%
|
USA
|
USA, 707, 14.15%
USA
707 publications, 14.15%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 357, 7.15%
Spain
357 publications, 7.15%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 345, 6.91%
Brazil
345 publications, 6.91%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 294, 5.88%
Germany
294 publications, 5.88%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 260, 5.2%
Italy
260 publications, 5.2%
|
France
|
France, 229, 4.58%
France
229 publications, 4.58%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 226, 4.52%
Thailand
226 publications, 4.52%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 208, 4.16%
United Kingdom
208 publications, 4.16%
|
India
|
India, 172, 3.44%
India
172 publications, 3.44%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 151, 3.02%
Mexico
151 publications, 3.02%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 145, 2.9%
Saudi Arabia
145 publications, 2.9%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 132, 2.64%
Austria
132 publications, 2.64%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 131, 2.62%
Netherlands
131 publications, 2.62%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 122, 2.44%
Egypt
122 publications, 2.44%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 112, 2.24%
Republic of Korea
112 publications, 2.24%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 109, 2.18%
Canada
109 publications, 2.18%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 105, 2.1%
Japan
105 publications, 2.1%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 104, 2.08%
Portugal
104 publications, 2.08%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 97, 1.94%
Australia
97 publications, 1.94%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 91, 1.82%
Czech Republic
91 publications, 1.82%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 85, 1.7%
Russia
85 publications, 1.7%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 80, 1.6%
Colombia
80 publications, 1.6%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 78, 1.56%
Belgium
78 publications, 1.56%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 75, 1.5%
Greece
75 publications, 1.5%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 63, 1.26%
Israel
63 publications, 1.26%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 57, 1.14%
Hungary
57 publications, 1.14%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 52, 1.04%
South Africa
52 publications, 1.04%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 50, 1%
Switzerland
50 publications, 1%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 49, 0.98%
Denmark
49 publications, 0.98%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 47, 0.94%
Poland
47 publications, 0.94%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 46, 0.92%
New Zealand
46 publications, 0.92%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 45, 0.9%
Chile
45 publications, 0.9%
|
Serbia
|
Serbia, 41, 0.82%
Serbia
41 publications, 0.82%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 41, 0.82%
Sweden
41 publications, 0.82%
|
Argentina
|
Argentina, 40, 0.8%
Argentina
40 publications, 0.8%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 35, 0.7%
Malaysia
35 publications, 0.7%
|
Slovakia
|
Slovakia, 35, 0.7%
Slovakia
35 publications, 0.7%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 35, 0.7%
Turkey
35 publications, 0.7%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 33, 0.66%
Iran
33 publications, 0.66%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 32, 0.64%
Pakistan
32 publications, 0.64%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 29, 0.58%
Finland
29 publications, 0.58%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 28, 0.56%
Ireland
28 publications, 0.56%
|
Croatia
|
Croatia, 24, 0.48%
Croatia
24 publications, 0.48%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 22, 0.44%
Nigeria
22 publications, 0.44%
|
Oman
|
Oman, 22, 0.44%
Oman
22 publications, 0.44%
|
Romania
|
Romania, 20, 0.4%
Romania
20 publications, 0.4%
|
Sri Lanka
|
Sri Lanka, 19, 0.38%
Sri Lanka
19 publications, 0.38%
|
Estonia
|
Estonia, 18, 0.36%
Estonia
18 publications, 0.36%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 18, 0.36%
Singapore
18 publications, 0.36%
|
Lithuania
|
Lithuania, 17, 0.34%
Lithuania
17 publications, 0.34%
|
Morocco
|
Morocco, 17, 0.34%
Morocco
17 publications, 0.34%
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenia, 17, 0.34%
Slovenia
17 publications, 0.34%
|
Bangladesh
|
Bangladesh, 16, 0.32%
Bangladesh
16 publications, 0.32%
|
Vietnam
|
Vietnam, 16, 0.32%
Vietnam
16 publications, 0.32%
|
Cuba
|
Cuba, 16, 0.32%
Cuba
16 publications, 0.32%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 15, 0.3%
Indonesia
15 publications, 0.3%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 14, 0.28%
Norway
14 publications, 0.28%
|
Tunisia
|
Tunisia, 14, 0.28%
Tunisia
14 publications, 0.28%
|
Ecuador
|
Ecuador, 14, 0.28%
Ecuador
14 publications, 0.28%
|
Lebanon
|
Lebanon, 13, 0.26%
Lebanon
13 publications, 0.26%
|
Philippines
|
Philippines, 13, 0.26%
Philippines
13 publications, 0.26%
|
UAE
|
UAE, 12, 0.24%
UAE
12 publications, 0.24%
|
Uganda
|
Uganda, 12, 0.24%
Uganda
12 publications, 0.24%
|
Bulgaria
|
Bulgaria, 11, 0.22%
Bulgaria
11 publications, 0.22%
|
Kenya
|
Kenya, 10, 0.2%
Kenya
10 publications, 0.2%
|
Latvia
|
Latvia, 10, 0.2%
Latvia
10 publications, 0.2%
|
Peru
|
Peru, 10, 0.2%
Peru
10 publications, 0.2%
|
Ukraine
|
Ukraine, 9, 0.18%
Ukraine
9 publications, 0.18%
|
Panama
|
Panama, 9, 0.18%
Panama
9 publications, 0.18%
|
Uruguay
|
Uruguay, 9, 0.18%
Uruguay
9 publications, 0.18%
|
French Guiana
|
French Guiana, 9, 0.18%
French Guiana
9 publications, 0.18%
|
Costa Rica
|
Costa Rica, 8, 0.16%
Costa Rica
8 publications, 0.16%
|
Kuwait
|
Kuwait, 8, 0.16%
Kuwait
8 publications, 0.16%
|
Ethiopia
|
Ethiopia, 8, 0.16%
Ethiopia
8 publications, 0.16%
|
Ghana
|
Ghana, 7, 0.14%
Ghana
7 publications, 0.14%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 6, 0.12%
Iraq
6 publications, 0.12%
|
Cameroon
|
Cameroon, 6, 0.12%
Cameroon
6 publications, 0.12%
|
Jordan
|
Jordan, 5, 0.1%
Jordan
5 publications, 0.1%
|
Qatar
|
Qatar, 5, 0.1%
Qatar
5 publications, 0.1%
|
Kyrgyzstan
|
Kyrgyzstan, 5, 0.1%
Kyrgyzstan
5 publications, 0.1%
|
Mauritius
|
Mauritius, 5, 0.1%
Mauritius
5 publications, 0.1%
|
Nepal
|
Nepal, 5, 0.1%
Nepal
5 publications, 0.1%
|
Kazakhstan
|
Kazakhstan, 4, 0.08%
Kazakhstan
4 publications, 0.08%
|
Algeria
|
Algeria, 4, 0.08%
Algeria
4 publications, 0.08%
|
Guatemala
|
Guatemala, 4, 0.08%
Guatemala
4 publications, 0.08%
|
Georgia
|
Georgia, 4, 0.08%
Georgia
4 publications, 0.08%
|
Paraguay
|
Paraguay, 4, 0.08%
Paraguay
4 publications, 0.08%
|
Tanzania
|
Tanzania, 4, 0.08%
Tanzania
4 publications, 0.08%
|
Cyprus
|
Cyprus, 3, 0.06%
Cyprus
3 publications, 0.06%
|
Luxembourg
|
Luxembourg, 3, 0.06%
Luxembourg
3 publications, 0.06%
|
Sudan
|
Sudan, 3, 0.06%
Sudan
3 publications, 0.06%
|
Uzbekistan
|
Uzbekistan, 3, 0.06%
Uzbekistan
3 publications, 0.06%
|
Barbados
|
Barbados, 2, 0.04%
Barbados
2 publications, 0.04%
|
Venezuela
|
Venezuela, 2, 0.04%
Venezuela
2 publications, 0.04%
|
Honduras
|
Honduras, 2, 0.04%
Honduras
2 publications, 0.04%
|
Laos
|
Laos, 2, 0.04%
Laos
2 publications, 0.04%
|
Mozambique
|
Mozambique, 2, 0.04%
Mozambique
2 publications, 0.04%
|
Myanmar
|
Myanmar, 2, 0.04%
Myanmar
2 publications, 0.04%
|
Senegal
|
Senegal, 2, 0.04%
Senegal
2 publications, 0.04%
|
Show all (70 more) | |
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
|
5 profile journal articles
Dubovskiy Ivan
DSc in Agricultural sciences

Novosibirsk State Agricultural University
68 publications,
1 853 citations
h-index: 23
Research interests
Entomology
Plant protection
4 profile journal articles
Malysheva Ekaterina

Komarov Botanical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences
54 publications,
1 612 citations
h-index: 16
4 profile journal articles
Angel Gonzalez
52 publications,
862 citations
h-index: 19
Research interests
Epidemiological and clinical aspects of patients with Neoscytalidium spp. dermatomycoses in Switzerland
3 profile journal articles
Glamoclija Jasmina
206 publications,
5 894 citations
h-index: 43
3 profile journal articles
Kunca Vladimír
27 publications,
166 citations
h-index: 8
2 profile journal articles
Popov Eugene
PhD in Biological/biomedical sciences

Komarov Botanical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences
53 publications,
885 citations
h-index: 11
Research interests
Mycology
2 profile journal articles
Schmidt Stefan

University of KwaZulu-Natal
76 publications,
1 839 citations
h-index: 26
Research interests
Microbiology
2 profile journal articles
GREFF Stéphane
56 publications,
1 117 citations
h-index: 20
2 profile journal articles
Kokaeva Lyudmila
27 publications,
139 citations
h-index: 7
2 profile journal articles
Kosman Elena

Institute of Systematics and Ecology of Animals of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
7 publications,
39 citations
h-index: 3
Research interests
Agricultural Entomology
Antibacterial immunity
Entomophagy
PCR
2 profile journal articles
Salomão Arias Laís
🤝
14 publications,
907 citations
h-index: 14
2 profile journal articles
Larena Inmaculada
51 publications,
1 244 citations
h-index: 18