World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Award Badge
Best Scientists
2025

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Best Scientists 197 326 305 217 200 1480 166271
Medicine 198 193 175 129 116 1463 174564

David Cella publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by David Cella between 1985 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. David Cella published across 41 years, from 1985 to 2025, averaging 42.4 papers a year. Output peaked at 96 publications in 2020. 98 of the 1,739 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
20 40 60 80
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1985 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 96. Peak 96 publications in 2020. 1985: 2 publications 1986: 2 publications 1987: 8 publications 1988: 6 publications 1989: 4 publications 1990: 4 publications 1991: 5 publications 1992: 13 publications 1993: 10 publications 1994: 5 publications 1995: 14 publications 1996: 17 publications 1997: 12 publications 1998: 18 publications 1999: 15 publications 2000: 15 publications 2001: 15 publications 2002: 40 publications 2003: 46 publications 2004: 30 publications 2005: 49 publications 2006: 45 publications 2007: 78 publications 2008: 57 publications 2009: 53 publications 2010: 57 publications 2011: 55 publications 2012: 72 publications 2013: 69 publications 2014: 87 publications 2015: 83 publications 2016: 86 publications 2017: 62 publications 2018: 81 publications 2019: 83 publications 2020: 96 publications 2021: 84 publications 2022: 68 publications 2023: 95 publications 2024: 67 publications 2025: 31 publications
1985 2025

1,739 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
David Cella: publications per year, 1985 to 2025
Year Publications
1985 2
1986 2
1987 8
1988 6
1989 4
1990 4
1991 5
1992 13
1993 10
1994 5
1995 14
1996 17
1997 12
1998 18
1999 15
2000 15
2001 15
2002 40
2003 46
2004 30
2005 49
2006 45
2007 78
2008 57
2009 53
2010 57
2011 55
2012 72
2013 69
2014 87
2015 83
2016 86
2017 62
2018 81
2019 83
2020 96
2021 84
2022 68
2023 95
2024 67
2025 31
Total 1,739
Download as CSV

David Cella 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 David Cella 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, 1,461–1,480 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: 1,463 publications — 99th percentile

99% 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
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 1,463
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

David Cella 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 David Cella 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, 198–199 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: 198 D-Index — 99th percentile

99% 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
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 14 198
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

Research.com Recognitions

  • 2025 - Research.com Best Scientists Award

Overview

David Cella is affiliated with Northwestern University in the United States and has a substantial body of research primarily in the field of medicine, with a significant focus on oncology. Their work spans several subfields including oncology, economics and econometrics, pulmonary and respiratory medicine, pediatrics, perinatology and child health, as well as public health, environmental and occupational health.

The research contributions by David Cella extensively cover topics related to cancer survivorship and care, health systems, economic evaluations and quality of life, childhood cancer survivors' quality of life, economic and financial impacts of cancer, cancer treatment and pharmacology, renal cell carcinoma treatment, and palliative care and end-of-life issues.

Examples of recent papers by David Cella include:

  • Minimal important change (MIC): a conceptual clarification and systematic review of MIC estimates of PROMIS measures, 2021, Quality of Life Research
  • Nivolumab versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Updated results with long-term follow-up of the randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial, 2020, Cancer
  • Effect of Electronic Symptom Monitoring on Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients With Metastatic Cancer, 2022, JAMA
  • Carboplatin and Paclitaxel for Advanced Endometrial Cancer: Final Overall Survival and Adverse Event Analysis of a Phase III Trial (NRG Oncology/GOG0209), 2020, Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • The increasing value of eHealth in the delivery of patient-centred cancer care, 2020, The Lancet Oncology

Frequent collaborators in their research include John Devin Peipert, Richard Gershon, Sofia F. Garcia, Lynne I. Wagner, and Lisa P. Jacobson.

Key publication venues where David Cella has frequently contributed are:

  • Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • UNC Libraries
  • Quality of Life Research
  • Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
  • Cancer

David Cella's research output is characterized by a multidisciplinary approach combining clinical oncology with economic and quality-of-life assessments, reflecting the interconnected nature of modern medical research. Their scholarly activity in both clinical and patient-reported outcome measures demonstrates a focus on both treatment efficacy and patient-centered care paradigms.

Best Publications

  • The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure.

    D F Cella;D S Tulsky;G Gray;B Sarafian

  • The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008

    David Cella;William Riley;Arthur Stone;Nan Rothrock

  • Paclitaxel plus Bevacizumab versus Paclitaxel Alone for Metastatic Breast Cancer

    Kathy Miller;Molin Wang;Julie Gralow;Maura Dickler

  • Interpreting the Clinical Importance of Treatment Outcomes in Chronic Pain Clinical Trials: IMMPACT Recommendations

    Robert H. Dworkin;Dennis C. Turk;Kathleen W. Wyrwich;Dorcas Beaton

  • Efficacy of Gefitinib, an Inhibitor of the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase, in Symptomatic Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized Trial

    Mark G. Kris;Ronald B. Natale;Roy S. Herbst;Thomas J. Lynch

  • The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years.

    David Cella;Susan Yount;Susan Yount;Nan Rothrock;Richard Gershon;Richard Gershon

  • Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®): depression, anxiety, and anger.

    Paul A. Pilkonis;Seung W. Choi;Steven P. Reise;Angela M. Stover

  • Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes.

    Dennis A. Revicki;Ron D. Hays;David Cella;Jeff A. Sloan

  • Pazopanib versus Sunitinib in Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma

    Robert J. Motzer;Thomas E. Hutson;David Cella;James Reeves

  • Comparative effectiveness of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS): a randomised phase 3 trial

    Brian I. Rini;Bernard Escudier;Piotr Tomczak;Andrey Kaprin

  • Measuring fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) measurement system

    Suzanne B. Yellen;David F. Cella;Kimberly Webster;Carol Blendowski

  • Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items

    Ron D. Hays;Jakob B. Bjorner;Dennis A. Revicki;Karen L. Spritzer

  • Measuring spiritual well-being in people with cancer: the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy--Spiritual Well-being Scale (FACIT-Sp).

    Amy H. Peterman;George Fitchett;Marianne J. Brady;Lesbia Hernandez

  • Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast quality-of-life instrument.

    M J Brady;D F Cella;F Mo;A E Bonomi

  • Impact of Cancer-Related Fatigue on the Lives of Patients: New Findings From the Fatigue Coalition

    Gregory A. Curt;William Breitbart;David Cella;Jerome E. Groopman

  • Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS).

    Bryce B. Reeve;Ron D. Hays;Jakob B. Bjorner;Karon F. Cook

  • The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Measurement System: properties, applications, and interpretation

    Kimberly Webster;David Cella;Kathleen Yost

  • Use of epoetin in patients with cancer: evidence-based clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology.

    J. Douglas Rizzo;Alan E. Lichtin;Steven H. Woolf;Jerome Seidenfeld

  • Etanercept and clinical outcomes, fatigue, and depression in psoriasis: double-blind placebo-controlled randomised phase III trial

    Stephen Tyring;Alice Gottlieb;Kim Papp;Ken Gordon

  • Efficacy of Gefitinib, an Inhibitor of the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase, in Symptomatic Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

    Mark G. Kris;Ronald B. Natale;Roy S. Herbst;Diane Prager

Frequent Co-Authors

Jin Shei Lai
Jin Shei Lai Northwestern University
Elizabeth A. Hahn
Elizabeth A. Hahn Northwestern University
Ron D. Hays
Ron D. Hays University of California, Los Angeles
Robert J. Motzer
Robert J. Motzer Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
Allen W. Heinemann
Allen W. Heinemann Northwestern University
Richard Gershon
Richard Gershon Northwestern University
Seung W. Choi
Seung W. Choi The University of Texas at Austin
Karon F. Cook
Karon F. Cook Northwestern University
Bryce B. Reeve
Bryce B. Reeve Duke 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

If you’re interested in healthcare careers beyond traditional MD and DO programs, there are many alternative pathways to consider. For aspiring nurses, there are direct msn programs online designed for candidates with a non-nursing background. These accelerated options can lead to advanced practice roles more quickly.

Alternatively, those seeking a faster route to patient care roles might explore adn programs, which allow students to become registered nurses in as little as two years. Some schools offer flexible entry requirements and rolling admissions, opening doors for a broader range of applicants.

If working directly with patients isn’t your goal, consider enrolling in medical coding and billing classes online with financial aid. These programs prepare you for essential behind-the-scenes roles in the healthcare system and often offer job-ready training in a year or less.

Concerned about admissions tests? Some nursing schools do not require the TEAS or HESI exams. Learn more: do you have to take a teas test for lpn.

Best Scientists Citing David Cella

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles