World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Medicine 103 7185 6748 404 388 970 59562

Claudia Spies publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Claudia Spies between 1990 and 2026, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Claudia Spies published across 37 years, from 1990 to 2026, averaging 32.7 papers a year. Output peaked at 68 publications in 2006. 60 of the 1,209 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
20 40 60
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1990 to 2026. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 68. Peak 68 publications in 2006. 1990: 2 publications 1991: 1 publication 1992: 5 publications 1993: 5 publications 1994: 8 publications 1995: 12 publications 1996: 17 publications 1997: 7 publications 1998: 4 publications 1999: 6 publications 2000: 11 publications 2001: 13 publications 2002: 15 publications 2003: 16 publications 2004: 31 publications 2005: 48 publications 2006: 68 publications 2007: 39 publications 2008: 41 publications 2009: 56 publications 2010: 63 publications 2011: 55 publications 2012: 42 publications 2013: 53 publications 2014: 40 publications 2015: 57 publications 2016: 42 publications 2017: 39 publications 2018: 42 publications 2019: 45 publications 2020: 52 publications 2021: 59 publications 2022: 56 publications 2023: 59 publications 2024: 40 publications 2025: 59 publications 2026: 1 publication
1990 2026

1,209 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Claudia Spies: publications per year, 1990 to 2026
Year Publications
1990 2
1991 1
1992 5
1993 5
1994 8
1995 12
1996 17
1997 7
1998 4
1999 6
2000 11
2001 13
2002 15
2003 16
2004 31
2005 48
2006 68
2007 39
2008 41
2009 56
2010 63
2011 55
2012 42
2013 53
2014 40
2015 57
2016 42
2017 39
2018 42
2019 45
2020 52
2021 59
2022 56
2023 59
2024 40
2025 59
2026 1
Total 1,209
Download as CSV

Claudia Spies publication distribution in Medicine in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Medicine in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Claudia Spies sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
200 400 600 800
Bar chart with 86 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 101–120 to 1,796+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 922. Most scientists, 922, have 341–360 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 1,796 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 961–980 publications, is where this scientist sits. 101–120 publications: 5 scientists 121–140 publications: 26 scientists 141–160 publications: 73 scientists 161–180 publications: 155 scientists 181–200 publications: 230 scientists 201–220 publications: 363 scientists 221–240 publications: 487 scientists 241–260 publications: 545 scientists 261–280 publications: 722 scientists 281–300 publications: 768 scientists 301–320 publications: 834 scientists 321–340 publications: 895 scientists 341–360 publications: 922 scientists 361–380 publications: 838 scientists 381–400 publications: 861 scientists 401–420 publications: 918 scientists 421–440 publications: 806 scientists 441–460 publications: 771 scientists 461–480 publications: 751 scientists 481–500 publications: 713 scientists 501–520 publications: 617 scientists 521–540 publications: 610 scientists 541–560 publications: 537 scientists 561–580 publications: 504 scientists 581–600 publications: 509 scientists 601–620 publications: 396 scientists 621–640 publications: 386 scientists 641–660 publications: 371 scientists 661–680 publications: 340 scientists 681–700 publications: 336 scientists 701–720 publications: 307 scientists 721–740 publications: 259 scientists 741–760 publications: 230 scientists 761–780 publications: 228 scientists 781–800 publications: 217 scientists 801–820 publications: 204 scientists 821–840 publications: 186 scientists 841–860 publications: 177 scientists 861–880 publications: 155 scientists 881–900 publications: 139 scientists 901–920 publications: 145 scientists 921–940 publications: 116 scientists 941–960 publications: 133 scientists 961–980 publications: 91 scientists 981–1,000 publications: 96 scientists 1,001–1,020 publications: 77 scientists 1,021–1,040 publications: 70 scientists 1,041–1,060 publications: 63 scientists 1,061–1,080 publications: 77 scientists 1,081–1,100 publications: 49 scientists 1,101–1,120 publications: 54 scientists 1,121–1,140 publications: 49 scientists 1,141–1,160 publications: 51 scientists 1,161–1,180 publications: 35 scientists 1,181–1,200 publications: 39 scientists 1,201–1,220 publications: 26 scientists 1,221–1,240 publications: 37 scientists 1,241–1,260 publications: 36 scientists 1,261–1,280 publications: 27 scientists 1,281–1,300 publications: 32 scientists 1,301–1,320 publications: 28 scientists 1,321–1,340 publications: 17 scientists 1,341–1,360 publications: 30 scientists 1,361–1,380 publications: 28 scientists 1,381–1,400 publications: 17 scientists 1,401–1,420 publications: 21 scientists 1,421–1,440 publications: 15 scientists 1,441–1,460 publications: 12 scientists 1,461–1,480 publications: 12 scientists 1,481–1,500 publications: 18 scientists 1,501–1,520 publications: 14 scientists 1,521–1,540 publications: 17 scientists 1,541–1,560 publications: 15 scientists 1,561–1,580 publications: 6 scientists 1,581–1,600 publications: 2 scientists 1,601–1,620 publications: 12 scientists 1,621–1,640 publications: 11 scientists 1,641–1,660 publications: 8 scientists 1,661–1,680 publications: 5 scientists 1,681–1,700 publications: 5 scientists 1,701–1,720 publications: 10 scientists 1,721–1,740 publications: 12 scientists 1,741–1,760 publications: 14 scientists 1,761–1,780 publications: 6 scientists 1,781–1,795 publications: 5 scientists 1,796+ publications: 100 scientists
101–120 publications 1,796+

This scientist: 970 publications — 94th percentile

94% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 1,796 publications or more.

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Medicine scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 20,134 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
101–120 5
121–140 26
141–160 73
161–180 155
181–200 230
201–220 363
221–240 487
241–260 545
261–280 722
281–300 768
301–320 834
321–340 895
341–360 922
361–380 838
381–400 861
401–420 918
421–440 806
441–460 771
461–480 751
481–500 713
501–520 617
521–540 610
541–560 537
561–580 504
581–600 509
601–620 396
621–640 386
641–660 371
661–680 340
681–700 336
701–720 307
721–740 259
741–760 230
761–780 228
781–800 217
801–820 204
821–840 186
841–860 177
861–880 155
881–900 139
901–920 145
921–940 116
941–960 133
961–980 91 970
981–1,000 96
1,001–1,020 77
1,021–1,040 70
1,041–1,060 63
1,061–1,080 77
1,081–1,100 49
1,101–1,120 54
1,121–1,140 49
1,141–1,160 51
1,161–1,180 35
1,181–1,200 39
1,201–1,220 26
1,221–1,240 37
1,241–1,260 36
1,261–1,280 27
1,281–1,300 32
1,301–1,320 28
1,321–1,340 17
1,341–1,360 30
1,361–1,380 28
1,381–1,400 17
1,401–1,420 21
1,421–1,440 15
1,441–1,460 12
1,461–1,480 12
1,481–1,500 18
1,501–1,520 14
1,521–1,540 17
1,541–1,560 15
1,561–1,580 6
1,581–1,600 2
1,601–1,620 12
1,621–1,640 11
1,641–1,660 8
1,661–1,680 5
1,681–1,700 5
1,701–1,720 10
1,721–1,740 12
1,741–1,760 14
1,761–1,780 6
1,781–1,795 5
1,796+ 100
Download as CSV

Claudia Spies D-index placement in Medicine in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Medicine scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Claudia Spies sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
250 500 750 1,000
Bar chart with 75 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 70–71 to 217+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 1,027. Most scientists, 1,027, have 82–83 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 217 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 102–103 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 70–71 D-Index: 226 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 391 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 574 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 730 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 891 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 972 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 1,027 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 1,003 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 960 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 970 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 922 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 839 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 808 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 779 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 668 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 611 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 630 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 513 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 541 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 445 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 429 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 399 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 393 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 318 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 302 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 287 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 255 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 256 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 252 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 230 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 179 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 168 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 163 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 159 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 134 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 134 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 118 scientists 144–145 D-Index: 109 scientists 146–147 D-Index: 106 scientists 148–149 D-Index: 74 scientists 150–151 D-Index: 79 scientists 152–153 D-Index: 80 scientists 154–155 D-Index: 87 scientists 156–157 D-Index: 57 scientists 158–159 D-Index: 74 scientists 160–161 D-Index: 69 scientists 162–163 D-Index: 60 scientists 164–165 D-Index: 53 scientists 166–167 D-Index: 39 scientists 168–169 D-Index: 42 scientists 170–171 D-Index: 32 scientists 172–173 D-Index: 39 scientists 174–175 D-Index: 40 scientists 176–177 D-Index: 28 scientists 178–179 D-Index: 19 scientists 180–181 D-Index: 23 scientists 182–183 D-Index: 31 scientists 184–185 D-Index: 18 scientists 186–187 D-Index: 20 scientists 188–189 D-Index: 22 scientists 190–191 D-Index: 13 scientists 192–193 D-Index: 21 scientists 194–195 D-Index: 12 scientists 196–197 D-Index: 12 scientists 198–199 D-Index: 14 scientists 200–201 D-Index: 15 scientists 202–203 D-Index: 13 scientists 204–205 D-Index: 10 scientists 206–207 D-Index: 8 scientists 208–209 D-Index: 4 scientists 210–211 D-Index: 12 scientists 212–213 D-Index: 11 scientists 214–215 D-Index: 10 scientists 216 D-Index: 4 scientists 217+ D-Index: 98 scientists
70–71 D-Index 217+

This scientist: 103 D-Index — 65th percentile

65% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 217 D-Index or more.

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Medicine scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 20,134 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
70–71 226
72–73 391
74–75 574
76–77 730
78–79 891
80–81 972
82–83 1,027
84–85 1,003
86–87 960
88–89 970
90–91 922
92–93 839
94–95 808
96–97 779
98–99 668
100–101 611
102–103 630 103
104–105 513
106–107 541
108–109 445
110–111 429
112–113 399
114–115 393
116–117 318
118–119 302
120–121 287
122–123 255
124–125 256
126–127 252
128–129 230
130–131 179
132–133 168
134–135 163
136–137 159
138–139 134
140–141 134
142–143 118
144–145 109
146–147 106
148–149 74
150–151 79
152–153 80
154–155 87
156–157 57
158–159 74
160–161 69
162–163 60
164–165 53
166–167 39
168–169 42
170–171 32
172–173 39
174–175 40
176–177 28
178–179 19
180–181 23
182–183 31
184–185 18
186–187 20
188–189 22
190–191 13
192–193 21
194–195 12
196–197 12
198–199 14
200–201 15
202–203 13
204–205 10
206–207 8
208–209 4
210–211 12
212–213 11
214–215 10
216 4
217+ 98
Download as CSV

Overview

Claudia Spies is affiliated with Charité - University Medicine Berlin in Germany and has an extensive research profile in the field of medicine, with a particular focus on critical care and intensive care medicine.

Their research spans several related subfields, including:

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
  • Surgery
  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
  • Developmental Neuroscience
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

The main topics of their work include:

  • Intensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
  • Anesthesia and Sedative Agents
  • Anesthesia and Neurotoxicity Research
  • Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
  • Frailty in Older Adults
  • Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
  • COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies

Among frequently publishing venues, they have contributed multiple studies to:

  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
  • AINS - Anästhesiologie · Intensivmedizin · Notfallmedizin · Schmerztherapie
  • BMJ Open
  • Critical Care Medicine
  • Scientific Reports

Some of the notable papers in which Claudia Spies has contributed include:

  • "A time-resolved proteomic and prognostic map of COVID-19" (2021) published in Cell Systems
  • "Update of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine evidence-based and consensus-based guideline on postoperative delirium in adult patients" (2023) in European Journal of Anaesthesiology
  • "Improving perioperative brain health: an expert consensus review of key actions for the perioperative care team" (2021) in British Journal of Anaesthesia
  • "Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in critically ill patients: diagnostic reliability of HLH-2004 criteria and HScore" (2020) in Critical Care
  • "Instruments to measure outcomes of post-intensive care syndrome in outpatient care settings - Results of an expert consensus and feasibility field test" (2020) in Journal of the Intensive Care Society

Collaborations have been notable with frequent co-authors including:

  • Felix Balzer
  • Björn Weiß
  • Georg Winterer
  • Friedrich Borchers
  • Arjen J. C. Slooter

Best Publications

  • Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

    Daniel J. Klionsky;Fabio C. Abdalla;Hagai Abeliovich;Robert T. Abraham

  • Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

    Daniel J. Klionsky;Kotb Abdelmohsen;Akihisa Abe;Joynal Abedin

  • Mortality after surgery in Europe: a 7 day cohort study

    Rupert M. Pearse;Rui P Moreno;Peter Bauer;Paolo Pelosi

  • Consensus review of optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Group recommendations.

    Kristoffer Lassen;Mattias Soop;Jonas Nygren;P. Boris W. Cox

  • A positive fluid balance is associated with a worse outcome in patients with acute renal failure

    Didier Payen;Anne-Cornélie Jm de Pont;Yasser Sakr;Claudia D. Spies

  • Perioperative fasting in adults and children: guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology.

    Smith I;Kranke P;Murat I;Smith A

  • European Society of Anaesthesiology evidence-based and consensus-based guideline on postoperative delirium

    César Aldecoa;Gabriella Bettelli;Federico Bilotta;Robert D. Sanders

  • Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

    Daniel J. Klionsky;Kotb Abdelmohsen;Akihisa Abe;Joynal Abedin

  • Gastrointestinal function in intensive care patients: terminology, definitions and management. Recommendations of the ESICM Working Group on Abdominal Problems

    Annika Reintam Blaser;Annika Reintam Blaser;Manu L. N. G. Malbrain;Joel Starkopf;Joel Starkopf;Sonja Fruhwald

  • ESPEN Guidelines on enteral nutrition: intensive care

    KG Kreymann;MM Berger;NE Deutz;M Hiesmayr

  • Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: A global inception cohort study

    Maurizio Cecconi;Christoph Hofer;Jean-Louis Teboul;Ville Pettila

  • Monitoring depth of anaesthesia in a randomized trial decreases the rate of postoperative delirium but not postoperative cognitive dysfunction

    F.M. Radtke;M. Franck;J. Lendner;S. Krüger

  • Comfort and patient-centred care without excessive sedation: the eCASH concept.

    Jean Louis Vincent;Yahya Shehabi;Timothy S. Walsh;Pratik P. Pandharipande

  • Different assessment tools for intensive care unit delirium: which score to use?

    Alawi Luetz;Anja Heymann;Finn M. Radtke;Chokri Chenitir

  • Epinephrine impairs splanchnic perfusion in septic shock.

    Andreas Meier-Hellmann;Konrad Reinhart;Donald L. Bredle;Martin Specht

  • Evidence and consensus based guideline for the management of delirium, analgesia, and sedation in intensive care medicine. Revision 2015 (DAS-Guideline 2015) – short version

    DAS-Taskforce;Ralf Baron;Andreas Binder;Rolf Biniek

  • The effect of a novel extracorporeal cytokine hemoadsorption device on IL-6 elimination in septic patients: A randomized controlled trial

    Dirk Schädler;Christine Pausch;Daniel Heise;Andreas Meier-Hellmann

  • Serum Cardiac Troponin T as a Prognostic Marker in Early Sepsis

    Claudia Spies;Volker Haude;Rudolf Fitzner;Klaus Schröder

  • Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

    Daniel J. Klionsky;Kotb Abdelmohsen;Akihisa Abe;Joynal Abedin

  • Evidence and consensus-based German guidelines for the management of analgesia, sedation and delirium in intensive care--short version.

    Jörg Martin;Anja Heymann;Katrin Bäsell;Ralf Baron

Frequent Co-Authors

Georg Winterer
Georg Winterer Charité - University Medicine Berlin
Konrad Reinhart
Konrad Reinhart Charité - University Medicine Berlin
Tobias Welte
Tobias Welte University of Hannover
Christian Müller
Christian Müller Freie Universität Berlin
Petra Gastmeier
Petra Gastmeier Charité - University Medicine Berlin
Tobias Pischon
Tobias Pischon Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine
Jalid Sehouli
Jalid Sehouli Charité - University Medicine Berlin
Jean Louis Vincent
Jean Louis Vincent Université Libre de Bruxelles
Harald Seifert
Harald Seifert University of Cologne
Rolf Rossaint
Rolf Rossaint RWTH Aachen University

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

For those interested in healthcare careers beyond traditional medical school, online programs offer flexible paths to enter or advance in the field. Many students are now exploring options such as the dnp program without clinical hours, which allows working professionals to earn a Doctor of Nursing Practice without the time commitment of in-person training.

If you want to start your healthcare career quickly, accelerated programs are available. The 9 month lpn program is a fast-track option for those seeking to become Licensed Practical Nurses in under a year, helping you enter the workforce sooner.

For those focused on mental health, the shortest online pmhnp programs can lead to a specialized master’s degree and new career opportunities in psychiatric nursing, often with minimal on-campus requirements.

Cost is also a major factor for many students. The cheapest online health science degree options provide an affordable entry into the growing field of healthcare administration, giving you the credentials to work in management or support roles without excessive student debt.

Best Scientists Citing Claudia Spies

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles