World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Joachim Schofer

Joachim Schofer

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
81
Citations
26507
World Ranking
16547
National Ranking
862

Joachim Schofer 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 Joachim Schofer 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: 371 publications — 32nd percentile

32% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Joachim Schofer 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 Joachim Schofer 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: 81 D-Index — 19th percentile

19% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Joachim Schofer is affiliated with Universität Hamburg in Germany and has focused a significant portion of their research on the field of Medicine, particularly within Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine. Their expertise spans several subfields including Epidemiology, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, Surgery, and Neurology. The primary topics of Schofer's work revolve around Cardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments, Infective Endocarditis Diagnosis and Management, and Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors. Additional areas include Aortic Disease and Treatment Approaches, Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies, Cardiac Structural Anomalies and Repair, as well as Pulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments.

Schofer has published extensively, contributing to 144 works in total. The frequent publication venues in which they appear include:

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

Some of the recent papers by Schofer include:

  • "Right Ventricular-Pulmonary Arterial Coupling and Afterload Reserve in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Repair," 2022, Journal of the American College of Cardiology
  • "Long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic valves," 2020, European Heart Journal
  • "Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement After Surgical Repair or Replacement," 2020, Circulation
  • "TRI-SCORE and benefit of intervention in patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation," 2023, European Heart Journal
  • "Outcomes of transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention by right ventricular function: a multicentre propensity-matched analysis," 2021, EuroIntervention

Frequent collaborators in Schofer's research include Azeem Latib, Maurizio Taramasso, Stephan Windecker, Rodrigo Estévez-Loureiro, and Francesco Maisano. These co-authors have been involved in multiple joint publications, indicating ongoing research partnerships.

Their main research topics align with the clinical and interventional cardiology domains, particularly focusing on various aspects of cardiac valve disease management and procedural outcomes. This includes studying the mechanics and therapeutic approaches to tricuspid, aortic, and mitral valve conditions as well as associated complications.

Best Publications

  • Safety and efficacy of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents

    Gregg W. Stone;Jeffrey W. Moses;Stephen G. Ellis;Joachim Schofer

  • Sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of patients with long atherosclerotic lesions in small coronary arteries: double-blind, randomised controlled trial (E-SIRIUS)

    Joachim Schofer;Michael Schlüter;Anthony H Gershlick;William Wijns

  • Advantages and applications of the centerline method for characterizing regional ventricular function

    F. H. Sheehan;E. L. Bolson;H. T. Dodge;D. G. Mathey

  • Randomized Study of the Crush Technique Versus Provisional Side-Branch Stenting in True Coronary Bifurcations: The CACTUS (Coronary Bifurcations: Application of the Crushing Technique Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stents) Study

    Antonio Colombo;Ezio Bramucci;Salvatore Saccà;Roberto Violini

  • High-Speed Rotational Atherectomy Before Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent Implantation in Complex Calcified Coronary Lesions: The Randomized ROTAXUS (Rotational Atherectomy Prior to Taxus Stent Treatment for Complex Native Coronary Artery Disease) Trial

    Mohamed Abdel-Wahab;Gert Richardt;Heinz Joachim Büttner;Ralph Toelg

  • Iodine-123 meta-iodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy: A noninvasive method to demonstrate myocardial adrenergic nervous system disintegrity in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy☆

    Joachim Schofer;Rolf Spielmann;Andreas Schuchert;Kirsten Weber

  • 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

  • Acute outcomes of MitraClip therapy for mitral regurgitation in high-surgical-risk patients: emphasis on adverse valve morphology and severe left ventricular dysfunction

    Olaf Franzen;Stephan Baldus;Volker Rudolph;Sven Meyer

  • Safety of Coronary Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Daily Clinical Practice One-Year Follow-Up of the e-Cypher Registry

    Philip Urban;Anthony H. Gershlick;Giulio Guagliumi;Philippe Guyon

  • Percutaneous Mitral Annuloplasty for Functional Mitral Regurgitation Results of the CARILLON Mitral Annuloplasty Device European Union Study

    Joachim Schofer;Tomasz Siminiak;Michael Haude;Jean P. Herrman

  • European perspective in the recanalisation of Chronic Total Occlusions (CTO): consensus document from the EuroCTO Club.

    Di Mario C;Werner Gs;Sianos G;Galassi Ar

  • Incidence, predictors, and clinical outcomes of coronary obstruction following transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: insights from the VIVID registry

    Henrique B. Ribeiro;Henrique B. Ribeiro;Josep Rodés-Cabau;Philipp Blanke;Jonathon Leipsic

  • Transcatheter Versus Medical Treatment of Patients With Symptomatic Severe Tricuspid Regurgitation

    Maurizio Taramasso;Giovanni Benfari;Pieter van der Bijl;Hannes Alessandrini

  • Transcatheter Treatment of Severe Tricuspid Regurgitation With the Edge-to-Edge MitraClip Technique

    Georg Nickenig;Marek Kowalski;Jörg Hausleiter;Daniel Braun

  • Outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement for degenerated bioprostheses, failed annuloplasty rings, and mitral annular calcification

    Sung Han Yoon;Brian K. Whisenant;Sabine Bleiziffer;Victoria Delgado

  • DOUBLE-BLIND RANDOMISED TRIAL OF INTRAVENOUS TISSUE-TYPE PLASMINOGEN ACTIVATOR VERSUS PLACEBO IN ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION

    M. Verstraete;R.W. Brower;D. Collen;A.J. Dunning

  • The PROFI Study (Prevention of Cerebral Embolization by Proximal Balloon Occlusion Compared to Filter Protection During Carotid Artery Stenting): A Prospective Randomized Trial

    Klaudija Bijuklic;Andreas Wandler;Fadia Hazizi;Joachim Schofer

  • MitraClip therapy in daily clinical practice: initial results from the German transcatheter mitral valve interventions (TRAMI) registry.

    Stephan Baldus;Wolfgang Schillinger;Olaf Franzen;Raffi Bekeredjian

  • Effect of interventions in salvaging left ventricular function in acute myocardial infarction: A study of intracoronary streptokinase

    Florence H. Sheehan;Detlef G. Mathey;Joachim Schofer;Hans Joachim Krebber

  • Transcatheter Valve Implantation for Patients with Aortic Stenosis

    Grégory Ducrocq;Dominique Himbert;Eric Brochet;Alec Vahanian

Frequent Co-Authors

Horst Sievert
Horst Sievert Cardiovascular Center Frankfurt
Azeem Latib
Azeem Latib Montefiore Medical Center
Francesco Maisano
Francesco Maisano University of Zurich
Stephan Windecker
Stephan Windecker University of Bern
Eberhard Grube
Eberhard Grube University Hospital Bonn
Martin B. Leon
Martin B. Leon Columbia University Medical Center
Peter J. Fitzgerald
Peter J. Fitzgerald Stanford University
Antonio Colombo
Antonio Colombo Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS
Karl-Heinz Kuck
Karl-Heinz Kuck Universität Hamburg
John G. Webb
John G. Webb University of British Columbia

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

Interested in medical careers beyond traditional degrees? There are several flexible online options for those considering healthcare fields. If you want to become a nurse but wish to avoid extensive entrance exams, explore a nursing school that does not require teas test. This pathway offers an accessible entry into nursing without the barriers of standardized exams.

For those seeking leadership in healthcare, earning a healthcare administration degree online accredited can open doors to management roles in hospitals and clinics.

Registered nurses looking to advance can consider rn to fnp programs to become Family Nurse Practitioners. These bridge programs are designed to accelerate your career progression and increase your scope of practice.

Another growing field is nutrition. Earning a nutrition degree online lets you gain expertise in dietetics and wellness with the flexibility of distance learning.

These alternative pathways provide students with opportunities to expand their career prospects in the healthcare sector without following the traditional route of a medical degree.

Best Scientists Citing Joachim Schofer

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles