World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
108
Citations
144505
World Ranking
5849
National Ranking
577

David R. Matthews 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 R. Matthews sits on this spectrum.

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: 611 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 publications 1,796+

This scientist: 412 publications — 41st percentile

41% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

David R. Matthews 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 R. Matthews sits on this spectrum.

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: 400 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 D-Index 217+

This scientist: 108 D-Index — 71st percentile

71% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

David R. Matthews is affiliated with the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. Their primary research focus lies within the field of Medicine, with a significant portion of their work centered on Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism. Other subfields in which they have contributed include Surgery, Molecular Biology, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, and Genetics.

The scientist's research covers several main topics, notably:

  • Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Diabetes Management and Research
  • Pancreatic function and diabetes
  • Metabolism, Diabetes, and Cancer
  • Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
  • Potassium and Related Disorders

Frequent co-authors with whom David R. Matthews has collaborated include:

  • Ioannis Avgerinos
  • Thomas Karagiannis
  • Eleni Bekiari
  • Απόστολος Τσάπας
  • Aris Liakos

David R. Matthews has published extensively in several venues. The most frequent publication outlets consist of:

  • Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism
  • Radiopaedia.org
  • Diabetologia
  • Annals of Internal Medicine
  • Diabetes Therapy

Some of their recent papers include:

  • Comparative Effectiveness of Glucose-Lowering Drugs for Type 2 Diabetes, 2020, Annals of Internal Medicine
  • Management of type 2 diabetes with the dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide: a systematic review and meta-analysis, 2022, Diabetologia
  • Prevention and management of COVID-19 among patients with diabetes: an appraisal of the literature, 2020, Diabetologia
  • Comparative efficacy of glucose-lowering medications on body weight and blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis, 2021, Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism
  • GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors for older people with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis, 2021, Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

Best Publications

  • Homeostasis model assessment : insulin resistance and beta-cell function from fasting plasma glucose and insulin concentrations in man

    D. R. Matthews;J. P. Hosker;A. S. Rudenski;B. A. Naylor

  • Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study

    Irene M Stratton;Amanda I Adler;H Andrew W Neil;David R Matthews

  • 10-Year Follow-up of Intensive Glucose Control in Type 2 Diabetes

    Rury R. Holman;Sanjoy K. Paul;M. Angelyn Bethel;David R. Matthews

  • Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes

    Bruce Neal;Vlado Perkovic;Vlado Perkovic;Kenneth W. Mahaffey;Dick de Zeeuw

  • Use and Abuse of HOMA Modeling

    Tara M. Wallace;Jonathan C. Levy;David R. Matthews

  • Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: A patient-centered approach: Position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

    Silvio E. Inzucchi;Richard M. Bergenstal;John B. Buse;Michaela Diamant

  • Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach. Position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

    Silvio E Inzucchi;Richard M Bergenstal;John B Buse;Michaela Diamant

  • Publication bias in clinical research

    P.J Easterbrook;R Gopalan;J.A Berlin;D.R Matthews

  • Association of systolic blood pressure with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 36): prospective observational study

    A. I. Adler;I. M. Stratton;H. A. W. Neil;J. S. Yudkin

  • Risk factors for coronary artery disease in non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus: United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS: 23)

    R C Turner;H Millns;H A W Neil;I M Stratton

  • Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2015: A Patient-Centered Approach: Update to a Position Statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes

    Silvio E. Inzucchi;Richard M. Bergenstal;John B. Buse;Michaela Diamant

  • Correct Homeostasis Model Assessment (HOMA) Evaluation Uses the Computer Program

    Jonathan C Levy;David R Matthews;Michel P Hermans

  • Efficacy and Safety Comparison of Liraglutide, Glimepiride, and Placebo, All in Combination With Metformin, in Type 2 Diabetes: The LEAD (Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes)-2 study

    Michael Nauck;Anders Frid;Kjeld Hermansen;Nalini S. Shah

  • UKPDS 50: risk factors for incidence and progression of retinopathy in Type II diabetes over 6 years from diagnosis.

    I. M. Stratton;E. M. Kohner;S. J. Aldington;R. C. Turner

  • The prevention of progression of arterial disease and diabetes (POPADAD) trial: factorial randomised placebo controlled trial of aspirin and antioxidants in patients with diabetes and asymptomatic peripheral arterial disease

    Jill Belch;Angus MacCuish;Iain Campbell;Stuart Cobbe

  • Psychosocial problems and barriers to improved diabetes management: results of the Cross-National Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN) Study

    Mark Peyrot;R. R. Rubin;T. Lauritzen;F. J. Snoek

  • Sodium–Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

    Despoina Vasilakou;Thomas Karagiannis;Eleni Athanasiadou;Maria Mainou

  • Long-term follow-up after tight control of blood pressure in type 2 diabetes

    Rury R. Holman;Sanjoy K. Paul;M. Angelyn Bethel;H. Andrew W. Neil

  • Genome-wide trans-ancestry meta-analysis provides insight into the genetic architecture of type 2 diabetes susceptibility.

    Anubha Mahajan;Min Jin Go;Weihua Zhang;Jennifer E. Below

  • Erratum: Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes: A patient-centered approach. Position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) (Diabetologia (2013) 56 (680))

    S. E. Inzucchi;R. M. Bergenstal;John B Buse;M. Diamant

Frequent Co-Authors

Bruce Neal
Bruce Neal George Institute for Global Health
Vlado Perkovic
Vlado Perkovic George Institute for Global Health
Kenneth W. Mahaffey
Kenneth W. Mahaffey Stanford University
Dick de Zeeuw
Dick de Zeeuw University of Groningen
Rury R. Holman
Rury R. Holman University of Oxford
Michael A. Nauck
Michael A. Nauck Ruhr University Bochum
Silvio E. Inzucchi
Silvio E. Inzucchi Yale University
David B. Dunger
David B. Dunger University of Cambridge
Mark Woodward
Mark Woodward Imperial College London

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 working in healthcare but aren’t sure about attending medical school, there are several online degree options and alternative career pathways to consider. Many students explore direct entry msn programs for non nurses online, which allow individuals without a nursing background to earn a Master of Science in Nursing through flexible, accelerated coursework.

For those seeking accessible pathways into nursing, it’s helpful to review easy nursing programs to get into that offer less competitive admissions, letting more applicants pursue a rewarding nursing career. If you want to avoid high-stakes entrance exams, you can also look for nursing programs without teas requirements, which simplifies the application process.

Not all healthcare roles require direct patient care or clinical duties. For those interested in administrative positions, check out the best medical billing and coding schools online with financial aid. These programs prepare you for well-paid, in-demand roles within the health system.

Best Scientists Citing David R. Matthews

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles