World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
89
Citations
31756
World Ranking
12611
National Ranking
518

Dina Brooks 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 Dina Brooks 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: 526 publications — 62nd percentile

62% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Dina Brooks 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 Dina Brooks 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: 89 D-Index — 38th percentile

38% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Dina Brooks is affiliated with McMaster University in Canada and has an extensive publication record in the fields of Medicine and Health Professions. Their research primarily focuses on Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, with significant contributions to related subfields including General Health Professions, Physiology, Radiological and Ultrasound Technology, and Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine.

The main topics covered in their work include:

  • Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
  • Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
  • Cardiac Health and Mental Health
  • Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
  • Health, psychology, and well-being
  • Physical Activity and Health

Dina Brooks has published numerous papers in frequently appearing venues such as:

  • Canadian Journal of Respiratory Critical Care and Sleep Medicine
  • Physiotherapy Canada
  • COPD Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
  • Respiratory Medicine
  • Pulmonology

Some recent publications include:

  • Exoskeleton use in post-stroke gait rehabilitation: a qualitative study of the perspectives of persons post-stroke and physiotherapists, 2020, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
  • Systematic review of psychometric properties and cross-cultural adaptation of the University of California and Los Angeles loneliness scale in adults, 2021, Current Psychology
  • Design and delivery of home-based telehealth pulmonary rehabilitation programs in COPD: A systematic review and meta-analysis, 2022, International Journal of Medical Informatics
  • The effect of digital interventions on related health literacy and skills for individuals living with chronic diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis, 2023, International Journal of Medical Informatics
  • Comparison of end-of-life care in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or lung cancer: A systematic review, 2020, Palliative Medicine

The collaboration network surrounding Dina Brooks includes frequent coauthors such as:

  • Roger Goldstein
  • Ana Oliveira
  • Alda Marques
  • Marla Beauchamp
  • Cindy Ellerton

The body of work contributed by Dina Brooks covers a broad range of topics within respiratory and health sciences, emphasizing chronic disease management, rehabilitation, telehealth, and end-of-life care aspects. Their interdisciplinary approach combines clinical research, patient care perspectives, and health technology assessments.

Best Publications

  • An official American thoracic society/European respiratory society statement: Key concepts and advances in pulmonary rehabilitation

    Martijn A. Spruit;Sally J. Singh;Chris Garvey;Richard ZuWallack

  • A qualitative systematic overview of the measurement properties of functional walk tests used in the cardiorespiratory domain.

    Sherra Solway;Dina Brooks;Yves Lacasse;Scott Thomas

  • Obstructive sleep apnea as a cause of systemic hypertension. Evidence from a canine model.

    D Brooks;R L Horner;L F Kozar;C L Render-Teixeira

  • Evaluation of gait symmetry after stroke: a comparison of current methods and recommendations for standardization.

    Kara K. Patterson;William H. Gage;William H. Gage;William H. Gage;Dina Brooks;Dina Brooks;Sandra E. Black

  • Exercise therapy for multiple sclerosis

    Marc B. Rietberg;Dina Brooks;Bernard M.J. Uitdehaag;Gert Kwakkel

  • Nutritional supplementation for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

    Ivone M Ferreira;Dina Brooks;John White;Roger Goldstein

  • ATS statement on six-minute walk test

    Dina Brooks;Sherra Solway;William J Gibbons

  • Proceedings of the 3rd IPLeiria’s International Health Congress

    Catarina Cardoso Tomás;Emanuel Oliveira;D. Sousa;M. Uba-Chupel

  • Effectiveness of Acute Geriatric Unit Care Using Acute Care for Elders Components: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

    Mary T. Fox;Malini Persaud;Ilo Maimets;Kelly O'Brien

  • The Influence of 6 Months of Oral Anabolic Steroids on Body Mass and Respiratory Muscles in Undernourished COPD Patients

    Ivone Martins Ferreira;Ieda T. Verreschi;Luiz E. Nery;Roger S. Goldstein

  • Characterization of pulmonary rehabilitation programs in Canada in 2005

    Dina Brooks;Rebecca Sottana;Barbara Bell;Mary Hanna

  • Differences in content and organisational aspects of pulmonary rehabilitation programmes

    Martijn A. Spruit;Fabio Pitta;Chris Garvey;Richard L. ZuWallack

  • Inspiratory muscle training in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an update of a systematic review.

    E. Lynne Geddes;Kelly O'Brien;W. Darlene Reid;Dina Brooks

  • Interval versus continuous training in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease- a systematic review

    Marla K Beauchamp;Mika Nonoyama;Roger S Goldstein;Kylie Hill

  • The effect of postrehabilitation programmes among individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

    D. Brooks;B. Krip;S. Mangovski-Alzamora;R.S. Goldstein

  • Nutritional support for individuals with COPD: a meta-analysis.

    Ivone M. Ferreira;Dina Brooks;Yves Lacasse;Roger S. Goldstein

  • Acute and Chronic Effects of Airway Obstruction on Canine Left Ventricular Performance

    John D. Parker;Dina Brooks;Louise F. Kozar;Caroline L. Render-Teixeira

  • The 2-minute walk test as a measure of functional improvement in persons with lower limb amputation

    Dina Brooks;Janet Parsons;Judith P. Hunter;Michael Devlin

  • Effect of combined aerobic and resistance training versus aerobic training alone in individuals with coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis:

    Susan Marzolini;Susan Marzolini;Paul I Oh;Dina Brooks;Dina Brooks

  • Nutritional supplementation in stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

    I M Ferreira;D Brooks;Y Lacasse;R S Goldstein

Frequent Co-Authors

Roger S. Goldstein
Roger S. Goldstein University of Toronto
William E. McIlroy
William E. McIlroy University of Waterloo
Sherry L. Grace
Sherry L. Grace University Health Network
Richard L. Horner
Richard L. Horner University of Toronto
Dale Corbett
Dale Corbett University of Ottawa
Christopher G. Maher
Christopher G. Maher University of Sydney
Gwendolen Jull
Gwendolen Jull University of Queensland
Sandra E. Black
Sandra E. Black University of Toronto
Pia Kontos
Pia Kontos Toronto Rehabilitation Institute
John Granton
John Granton University of Toronto

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

Pursuing a career in medicine opens many doors beyond the traditional path to becoming an MD. Online degrees have become a flexible and cost-effective way to start or advance your healthcare career from anywhere in the world.

For those interested in pharmaceutical sciences, an online pharmacy degree allows you to study the necessary skills while balancing work and family commitments. If your interests lean toward the intersection of health and technology, consider exploring an online mhi (Master of Health Informatics) to work in health information management and data analytics.

Many students choose billing and coding classes online as a quick entry point into the healthcare sector, preparing for roles that are both in-demand and vital to healthcare operations. Additionally, experienced nurses can advance their qualifications and autonomy with online nurse practitioner programs, leading to expanded clinical responsibilities and higher earning potential.

Online programs offer greater accessibility, often lower costs, and the flexibility to continue working while you study. They provide multiple pathways to meaningful and rewarding healthcare careers, even if you are not pursuing a traditional MD.

Best Scientists Citing Dina Brooks

Trending Scientists