A citation-based method for searching scientific literature

Jennifer M Griffith, James R Sorenson, J Michael Bowling, Tracey Jennings-Grant. Health Educ Behav 2005
Times Cited: 6







List of co-cited articles
14 articles co-cited >1



Times Cited
  Times     Co-cited
Similarity


Effect of a computer-based decision aid on knowledge, perceptions, and intentions about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility: a randomized controlled trial.
Michael J Green, Susan K Peterson, Maria Wagner Baker, Gregory R Harper, Lois C Friedman, Wendy S Rubinstein, David T Mauger. JAMA 2004
216
66



Use of an educational computer program before genetic counseling for breast cancer susceptibility: effects on duration and content of counseling sessions.
Michael J Green, Susan K Peterson, Maria Wagner Baker, Lois C Friedman, Gregory R Harper, Wendy S Rubinstein, June A Peters, David T Mauger. Genet Med 2005
73
50


Interventions to improve patient education regarding multifactorial genetic conditions: a systematic review.
Katherine G Meilleur, Marguerite T Littleton-Kearney. Am J Med Genet A 2009
27
50

A randomized trial of a prenatal genetic testing interactive computerized information aid.
Lynn M Yee, Michael Wolf, Rebecca Mullen, Ashley R Bergeron, Stacy Cooper Bailey, Robert Levine, William A Grobman. Prenat Diagn 2014
32
50


An interactive computer program can effectively educate potential users of cystic fibrosis carrier tests.
Carlo Castellani, Sandra Perobelli, Vera Bianchi, Manuela Seia, Paola Melotti, Luisa Zanolla, Baroukh Maurice Assael, Faustina Lalatta. Am J Med Genet A 2011
14
33

Tay Sachs disease carrier screening in schools: educational alternatives and cheekbrush sampling.
Alexandra A Gason, Sylvia A Metcalfe, Martin B Delatycki, Vicki Petrou, Edith Sheffield, Agnes Bankier, Maryanne Aitken. Genet Med 2005
27
33


Randomized comparison of group versus individual genetic education and counseling for familial breast and/or ovarian cancer.
Kathleen A Calzone, Sheila A Prindiville, Oxana Jourkiv, Jean Jenkins, Maria DeCarvalho, Dawn B Wallerstedt, David J Liewehr, Seth M Steinberg, Peter W Soballe, Stan Lipkowitz,[...]. J Clin Oncol 2005
57
33

Computerized prenatal genetic testing decision-assisting tool: a randomized controlled trial.
Miriam Kuppermann, Mary E Norton, Elena Gates, Steven E Gregorich, Lee A Learman, Sanae Nakagawa, Vickie A Feldstein, James Lewis, A Eugene Washington, Robert F Nease. Obstet Gynecol 2009
57
33

Pre-counseling education for low literacy women at risk of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC): patient experiences using the Cancer Risk Education Intervention Tool (CREdIT).
Galen Joseph, Mary S Beattie, Robin Lee, Dejana Braithwaite, Carolina Wilcox, Maya Metrikin, Kate Lamvik, Judith Luce. J Genet Couns 2010
31
33


Communication and decision-making in labour: do birth plans make a difference?
Stephanie J Brown, Judith Lumley. Health Expect 1998
22
16




Individual or group antenatal education for childbirth or parenthood, or both.
A J Gagnon, J Sandall. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007
200
16


Women's perceptions of birth plans.
H M Whitford, E M Hillan. Midwifery 1998
32
16


Letter from England--birth plans.
S Kitzinger. Birth 1992
11
16

Pregnancy outcomes of adolescents enrolled in a CenteringPregnancy program.
Mary Alice Grady, Kathaleen C Bloom. J Midwifery Womens Health 2004
131
16

Childbirth education classes: sociodemographic disparities in attendance and the association of attendance with breastfeeding initiation.
Michael C Lu, Julia Prentice, Stella M Yu, Moira Inkelas, Linda O Lange, Neal Halfon. Matern Child Health J 2003
28
16

Episiotomy for vaginal birth.
G Carroli, J Belizan. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000
111
16

A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent.
Simon N Whitney, Amy L McGuire, Laurence B McCullough. Ann Intern Med 2004
227
16

The similarities between birth plans and living wills.
Nayna C Philipsen, Dorothy R Haynes. J Perinat Educ 2005
6
16


Communicating evidence for participatory decision making.
Ronald M Epstein, Brian S Alper, Timothy E Quill. JAMA 2004
355
16


Birth plans: the good, the bad, and the future.
Judith Lothian. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2006
50
16


Is the childbirth experience improved by a birth plan?
Ingela Lundgren, Marie Berg, Gunilla Lindmark. J Midwifery Womens Health 2003
40
16




Group prenatal care and perinatal outcomes: a randomized controlled trial.
Jeannette R Ickovics, Trace S Kershaw, Claire Westdahl, Urania Magriples, Zohar Massey, Heather Reynolds, Sharon Schindler Rising. Obstet Gynecol 2007
358
16

Screening couples for cystic fibrosis carrier status: why are we waiting?
R John Massie, Martin B Delatycki, Agnes Bankier. Med J Aust 2005
20
16

Population screening for cystic fibrosis: knowledge and emotional consequences 18 months later.
Claire Gordon, Ian Walpole, Stephen R Zubrick, Carol Bower. Am J Med Genet A 2003
26
16


Genetic screening for cystic fibrosis.
Anthony R Gregg, Joe Leigh Simpson. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2002
15
16

Can face-to-face patient education be replaced by computer-based patient education? A randomised trial.
Bram J Keulers, Carlo F M Welters, Paul H M Spauwen, Peter Houpt. Patient Educ Couns 2007
43
16

The Cystic Fibrosis mutation "arms race": when less is more.
Wayne W Grody, Garry R Cutting, Michael S Watson. Genet Med 2007
34
16



Teaching about cystic fibrosis carrier screening by using written and video information.
E W Clayton, V L Hannig, J P Pfotenhauer, R A Parker, P W Campbell, J A Phillips. Am J Hum Genet 1995
46
16

Association between carrier screening and incidence of cystic fibrosis.
Carlo Castellani, Luigi Picci, Anna Tamanini, Paolo Girardi, Paolo Rizzotti, Baroukh Maurice Assael. JAMA 2009
56
16

Cystic fibrosis carrier population screening in the primary care setting.
S Loader, P Caldwell, A Kozyra, J C Levenkron, C D Boehm, H H Kazazian, P T Rowley. Am J Hum Genet 1996
74
16


Co-cited is the co-citation frequency, indicating how many articles cite the article together with the query article. Similarity is the co-citation as percentage of the times cited of the query article or the article in the search results, whichever is the lowest. These numbers are calculated for the last 100 citations when articles are cited more than 100 times.