World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
132
Citations
92807
World Ranking
2270
National Ranking
1283

Donald L. Patrick 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 Donald L. Patrick 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: 571 publications — 68th percentile

68% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Donald L. Patrick 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 Donald L. Patrick 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: 132 D-Index — 89th percentile

89% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Donald L. Patrick is affiliated with the University of Washington in the United States. Their research spans multiple areas within medicine and health professions, with a focus on patient-reported outcomes, health systems, and disease-specific studies.

Their main fields of study include:

  • Medicine
  • Health Professions

Within these fields, subfields of study show a concentration on:

  • General Health Professions
  • Genetics
  • Oncology
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Economics and Econometrics

The main topics covered in their work include:

  • Cleft Lip and Palate Research
  • Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
  • Delphi Technique in Research
  • Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • BRCA gene mutations in cancer

Frequent publication venues for Donald L. Patrick consist of:

  • The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
  • Diabetes
  • Value in Health
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
  • BMJ Open

Some of their recent notable papers include:

  • COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: a Delphi study, 2020, BMC Medical Research Methodology
  • Evaluating the credibility of anchor based estimates of minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes: instrument development and reliability study, 2020, BMJ
  • Defining Patient Engagement in Research: Results of a Systematic Review and Analysis: Report of the ISPOR Patient-Centered Special Interest Group, 2020, Value in Health
  • SPIRIT-PRO Extension explanation and elaboration: guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in protocols of clinical trials, 2021, BMJ Open
  • Minimal important difference estimates for patient-reported outcomes: A systematic survey, 2020, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Donald L. Patrick has collaborated frequently with several co-authors, including:

  • Todd C. Edwards
  • Micah L. Olson
  • Stephanie L. Ayers
  • Gabriel Q. Shaibi
  • Armando Peña

Best Publications

  • Measuring health-related quality of life.

    Gordon H. Guyatt;David H. Feeny;Donald L. Patrick

  • Screening for depression in well older adults: Evaluation of a short form of the CES-D

    Elena M. Andresen;Judith A. Malmgren;William B. Carter;Donald L. Patrick

  • The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes.

    Lidwine B. Mokkink;Caroline B. Terwee;Donald L. Patrick;Jordi Alonso

  • The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study

    Lidwine B. Mokkink;Caroline B. Terwee;Donald L. Patrick;Jordi Alonso

  • Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life.

    Donald L. Patrick;Richard A. Deyo

  • COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures

    C. A.C. Prinsen;L. B. Mokkink;L. M. Bouter;J. Alonso

  • The validity of self-reported smoking: a review and meta-analysis.

    Donald L. Patrick;Allen Cheadle;Diane C. Thompson;Paula Diehr

  • COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

    L. B. Mokkink;H. C. W. de Vet;C. A. C. Prinsen;D. L. Patrick

  • The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content

    Lidwine B Mokkink;Caroline B Terwee;Dirk L Knol;Paul W Stratford

  • Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation.

    Richard A. Deyo;Paula Diehr;Donald L. Patrick

  • COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study

    C. B. Terwee;C. A.C. Prinsen;A. Chiarotto;M. J. Westerman

  • Content validity--establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: part 2--assessing respondent understanding.

    Donald L. Patrick;Laurie B. Burke;Chad J. Gwaltney;Nancy Kline Leidy

  • Content Validity—Establishing and Reporting the Evidence in Newly Developed Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Instruments for Medical Product Evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report: Part 1—Eliciting Concepts for a New PRO Instrument

    Donald L. Patrick;Laurie B. Burke;Chad J. Gwaltney;Nancy Kline Leidy

  • Depressive Symptoms and the Cost of Health Services in HMO Patients Aged 65 Years and Older: A 4-Year Prospective Study

    Jürgen Unützer;Donald L. Patrick;Greg Simon;David Grembowski

  • Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica.

    Donald L. Patrick;Richard A. Deyo;Steven J. Atlas;Daniel E. Singer

  • Health Status and Health Policy: Quality of Life in Health Care Evaluation and Resource Allocation

    Donald L. Patrick;Pennifer Erickson

  • Validation of the United States' version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) instrument.

    Amy E. Bonomi;Donald L. Patrick;Donald M. Bushnell;Mona Martin

  • Patient-Reported Outcomes to Support Medical Product Labeling Claims: FDA Perspective

    Donald L. Patrick;Laurie B. Burke;John H. Powers;Jane A. Scott

  • Quality of Life in Persons with Irritable Bowel Syndrome (Development and Validation of a New Measure)

    Donald L. Patrick;Douglas A. Drossman;Ihunnaya O. Frederick;Joseph Dicesare

  • Self-efficacy and health behavior among older adults.

    David Grembowski;Donald Patrick;Paula Diehr;Mary Durham

Frequent Co-Authors

Lesley Fallowfield
Lesley Fallowfield University of Sussex
Charles S. Cleeland
Charles S. Cleeland The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Scott D. Ramsey
Scott D. Ramsey Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
Shirley A. A. Beresford
Shirley A. A. Beresford University of Washington
Lex M. Bouter
Lex M. Bouter Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
J. Randall Curtis
J. Randall Curtis University of Washington
Jordi Alonso
Jordi Alonso Pompeu Fabra University
Richard A. Deyo
Richard A. Deyo Oregon Health & Science University
Gordon H. Guyatt
Gordon H. Guyatt McMaster University
Felipe González Castro
Felipe González Castro Arizona State 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 considering paths alongside or beyond traditional medical school, there are a range of online degrees and alternative healthcare careers that offer flexibility and accessibility. Options like msn direct entry programs online let non-nursing graduates quickly earn a Master of Science in Nursing, fast-tracking entry into advanced clinical roles.

For those starting out, researching what is the easiest nursing school to get into can help reduce barriers to entry, especially if you’re concerned about competitiveness. Some prospective nurses also prefer institutions that offer a smoother admissions process; that’s where nursing schools that don't require teas make entering nursing school even more approachable.

Not all healthcare roles require hands-on clinical care. Many students are drawn to allied health fields like medical billing and coding. Numerous medical billing and coding schools that accept financial aid provide high-quality, accredited training entirely online with financial support options.

Whether your goal is direct patient care or a supporting healthcare role, today’s online pathways make it easier than ever to find the right fit for your future.

Best Scientists Citing Donald L. Patrick

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles