World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
113
Citations
43992
World Ranking
4984
National Ranking
190

Jan J. Piek 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 Jan J. Piek 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: 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 publications 1,796+

This scientist: 966 publications — 93rd percentile

93% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Jan J. Piek 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 Jan J. Piek 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: 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 D-Index 217+

This scientist: 113 D-Index — 76th percentile

76% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Jan J. Piek is affiliated with the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands and has made extensive contributions to the field of medicine, with a primary focus on cardiology and cardiovascular medicine. Their research encompasses a range of subfields, including radiology, nuclear medicine, imaging, surgery, pulmonary and respiratory medicine, and immunology.

Their work covers various main topics, notably cardiac imaging and diagnostics, coronary interventions and diagnostics, acute myocardial infarction research, cardiovascular function and risk factors, cardiac valve diseases and treatments, antiplatelet therapy and cardiovascular diseases, and cardiac, anesthesia, and surgical outcomes.

Frequent co-authors collaborating with Jan J. Piek include:

  • Tim P. van de Hoef
  • Javier Escaned
  • Coen K.M. Boerhout
  • Joanna J. Wykrzykowska
  • Guus A. de Waard

Jan J. Piek has published in multiple prominent venues, with frequent publications appearing in:

  • Netherlands Heart Journal
  • European Heart Journal
  • EuroIntervention
  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology
  • JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions

Significant recent publications include:

  • "2024 ESC Guidelines for the management of chronic coronary syndromes," 2024, European Heart Journal
  • "Clinical quantitative cardiac imaging for the assessment of myocardial ischaemia," 2020, Nature Reviews Cardiology
  • "Advances in IVUS/OCT and Future Clinical Perspective of Novel Hybrid Catheter System in Coronary Imaging," 2020, Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
  • "The Impact of Coronary Physiology on Contemporary Clinical Decision Making," 2020, JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
  • "Five-year outcomes after state-of-the-art percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with de novo three-vessel disease: final results of the SYNTAX II study," 2021, European Heart Journal

Best Publications

  • Myocardial infarction accelerates atherosclerosis

    Partha Dutta;Gabriel Courties;Ying Wei;Florian Leuschner;Florian Leuschner

  • PCI Strategies in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

    Holger Thiele;Ibrahim Akin;Marcus Sandri;Georg Fuernau

  • Use of the Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve in PCI

    J. E. Davies;S. Sen;H. M. Dehbi;H. M. Dehbi;H. M. Dehbi;R. Al-Lamee

  • Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction

    Dagmar M. Ouweneel;Erlend Eriksen;Krischan D. Sjauw;Ivo M. van Dongen

  • Reduction of myocardial infarct size by human mesenchymal stem cell conditioned medium.

    Leo Timmers;Sai Kiang Lim;Fatih Arslan;Jeffrey S. Armstrong

  • A systematic review and meta-analysis of intra aortic balloon pump therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: should we change the guidelines?

    Krischan D. Sjauw;Annemarie E. Engström;Marije M. Vis;René J. van der Schaaf

  • Physiological Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Committee on Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Catheterization, Council on Clinical Cardiology

    Morton J. Kern;Amir Lerman;Jan Willen Bech;Bernard De Bruyne

  • Comparison of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent for the treatment of coronary artery stenosis (ABSORB II): a 3 year, randomised, controlled, single-blind, multicentre clinical trial

    Patrick W Serruys;Bernard Chevalier;Yohei Sotomi;Angel Cequier

  • Exenatide reduces infarct size and improves cardiac function in a porcine model of ischemia and reperfusion injury.

    Leo Timmers;José P.S. Henriques;Dominique P.V. de Kleijn;J. Hans DeVries

  • Human mesenchymal stem cell-conditioned medium improves cardiac function following myocardial infarction

    Leo Timmers;Sai Kiang Lim;Imo E. Hoefer;Fatih Arslan

  • Stimulation of arteriogenesis; a new concept for the treatment of arterial occlusive disease

    Niels van Royen;Niels van Royen;Jan J. Piek;Ivo Buschmann;Imo Hoefer

  • A randomised comparison of an everolimus-eluting coronary stent with a paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent:the SPIRIT II trial.

    Patrick W Serruys;Peter Ruygrok;Jörg Neuzner;Jan J Piek

  • Bioresorbable Scaffolds versus Metallic Stents in Routine PCI

    Joanna J. Wykrzykowska;Robin P. Kraak;Sjoerd H. Hofma;Rene J. van der Schaaf

  • Plaque Instability Frequently Occurs Days or Weeks Before Occlusive Coronary Thrombosis. A Pathological Thrombectomy Study in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

    Saskia Z.H. Rittersma;Allard C. van der Wal;Karel T. Koch;Jan J. Piek

  • Toll-Like Receptor 4 Mediates Maladaptive Left Ventricular Remodeling and Impairs Cardiac Function After Myocardial Infarction

    Leo Timmers;Joost P.G. Sluijter;J. Karlijn van Keulen;Imo E. Hoefer

  • Prognostic Value of Intracoronary Flow Velocity and Diameter Stenosis in Assessing the Short- and Long-term Outcomes of Coronary Balloon Angioplasty: The DEBATE Study (Doppler Endpoints Balloon Angioplasty Trial Europe)

    P.W. Serruys;C. di Mario;J.J. Piek;E. Schroeder

  • A randomized comparison of a durable polymer Everolimus-eluting stent with a bare metal coronary stent: The SPIRIT first trial

    Patrick W. Serruys;Andrew T. L. Ong;Jan J. Piek;Franz-Josef Neumann

  • Physiological Basis and Long-Term Clinical Outcome of Discordance Between Fractional Flow Reserve and Coronary Flow Velocity Reserve in Coronary Stenoses of Intermediate Severity

    Tim P. van de Hoef;Martijn A. van Lavieren;Peter Damman;Ronak Delewi

  • One-Year Outcomes after PCI Strategies in Cardiogenic Shock

    Holger Thiele;Ibrahim Akin;Marcus Sandri;Suzanne de Waha-Thiele

  • Multicenter Core Laboratory Comparison of the Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Resting Pd/Pa With Fractional Flow Reserve: The RESOLVE Study

    Allen Jeremias;Akiko Maehara;Philippe Généreux;Kaleab N. Asrress

Frequent Co-Authors

Jan G.P. Tijssen
Jan G.P. Tijssen University of Amsterdam
Robbert J. de Winter
Robbert J. de Winter University of Amsterdam
Patrick W. Serruys
Patrick W. Serruys University of Galway
Javier Escaned
Javier Escaned Hospital Clínico San Carlos
Yoshinobu Onuma
Yoshinobu Onuma University of Galway
Fernando Alfonso
Fernando Alfonso Hospital Universitario de La Princesa
Stephan Windecker
Stephan Windecker University of Bern
Carlo Di Mario
Carlo Di Mario University of Florence
Manel Sabaté
Manel Sabaté University of Barcelona
Luc Pierard
Luc Pierard University of Liège

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

Exploring alternative and related pathways to a traditional medical degree can open up rewarding careers in healthcare. Direct admit nursing programs provide a streamlined entry into nursing, allowing students to begin core courses immediately without extra prerequisite hurdles.

For those interested in administrative and supportive roles, medical billing and coding online schools that accept financial aid make it more accessible to develop crucial skills for the growing healthcare industry. Many of these programs are flexible and designed for busy adults.

Some candidates may prefer nursing schools that don't require teas test, reducing the barriers to entry and allowing more time to focus on academic and clinical training instead of entrance exams.

Leadership roles are also within reach through fully online academic routes. Those seeking management opportunities should consider pursuing a healthcare administration degree online accredited by recognized agencies, which offers flexibility and direct relevance to healthcare system operations.

Best Scientists Citing Jan J. Piek

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles