World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
109
Citations
187825
World Ranking
5638
National Ranking
554

Jos Kleijnen 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 Jos Kleijnen 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: 436 publications — 46th percentile

46% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Jos Kleijnen 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 Jos Kleijnen 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: 109 D-Index — 72nd percentile

72% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Jos Kleijnen is affiliated with Kleijnen Systematic Reviews in the United Kingdom. Their work spans a broad range of topics within medicine, with a focus on systematic reviews and meta-analyses. They have contributed extensively to the field of surgery, oncology, rheumatology, public health, environmental and occupational health, and cardiology and cardiovascular medicine.

The scientist's research output includes a strong emphasis on healthcare interventions and treatments, often exploring outcomes related to pelvic floor disorders, anorectal diseases, colorectal cancer surgeries, and quality of life assessments. They have engaged in meta-analytical studies and have utilized the Delphi technique in research.

Frequent co-authors in Jos Kleijnen's publications include Robert Wolff, Nigel Armstrong, Stéphanie O. Breukink, Manuela Joore, and Sabine Grimm, reflecting collaborative research efforts across related specialties.

Main publication venues where their work appears are:

  • PharmacoEconomics
  • Colorectal Disease
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
  • United European Gastroenterology Journal
  • BMJ Open

Highlighted recent papers authored or co-authored by Jos Kleijnen include:

  • European Society of ColoProctology: guideline for haemorrhoidal disease, 2020, Colorectal Disease
  • Patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators associated with the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in cancer care: a systematic review, 2020, Supportive Care in Cancer
  • Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in patients with signs or symptoms of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC): a joint guideline from the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), 2022, Gut
  • Most healthcare interventions tested in Cochrane Reviews are not effective according to high quality evidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis, 2022, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
  • Guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of Faecal Incontinence-A UEG/ESCP/ESNM/ESPCG collaboration, 2022, United European Gastroenterology Journal

The main topics of Jos Kleijnen's research encompass:

  • Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Anorectal Disease Treatments and Outcomes
  • Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Delphi Technique in Research
  • Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
  • Head and Neck Cancer Studies

Best Publications

  • The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

    Alessandro Liberati;Douglas G. Altman;Jennifer Tetzlaff;Cynthia Mulrow

  • The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

    Alessandro Liberati;Douglas G Altman;Jennifer Tetzlaff;Cynthia Mulrow

  • Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement

    D Moher;A Liberati;J Tetzlaff;D G Altman

  • The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and ElaborationPRISMA: Explanation and Elaboration

    Alessandro Liberati;Douglas G. Altman;Jennifer Tetzlaff;Cynthia Mulrow

  • The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews

    Penny Whiting;Anne W S Rutjes;Johannes B Reitsma;Patrick M M Bossuyt

  • Cannabinoids for Medical Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

    Penny F Whiting;Penny F Whiting;Robert F Wolff;Sohan Deshpande;Marcello Di Nisio

  • [ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed.]

    Penny Whiting;Jelena Savović;Julian P T Higgins;Deborah M Caldwell

  • Influence of context effects on health outcomes: a systematic review.

    Zelda Di Blasi;Elaine Harkness;Edzard Ernst;Amanda Georgiou

  • Being big or growing fast: systematic review of size and growth in infancy and later obesity

    Janis Baird;David Fisher;Patricia Lucas;Jos Kleijnen

  • Five steps to conducting a systematic review

    Khalid S Khan;Regina Kunz;Jos Kleijnen;Gerd Antes

  • PROBAST: A tool to assess the risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies

    Robert F. Wolff;Karel G.M. Moons;Richard D. Riley;Penny F. Whiting

  • Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study.

    Wichor M. Bramer;Melissa L. Rethlefsen;Jos Kleijnen;Jos Kleijnen;Oscar H. Franco

  • Clinical trials of homoeopathy.

    J Kleijnen;P Knipschild;G ter Riet

  • Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement (Chinese edition)

    D Moher;A Liberati;A Liberati;J Tetzlaff;D G Altman

  • Use of uterine artery Doppler ultrasonography to predict pre-eclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction: a systematic review and bivariable meta-analysis

    Jeltsje S. Cnossen;Rachel K. Morris;Gerben ter Riet;Gerben ter Riet;Ben W.J. Mol

  • Sources of Variation and Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: a Systematic Review

    Penny F Whiting;Anne W S Rutjes;Johannes B Reitsma;Afina S Glas

  • PROBAST : A Tool to Assess Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies: Explanation and Elaboration

    Karel G.M. Moons;Robert F. Wolff;Richard D. Riley;Penny F. Whiting

  • Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies

    Penny F Whiting;Marie E Weswood;Anne W S Rutjes;Johannes B Reitsma

  • Systematic reviews to support evidence-based medicine.

    Khalid Khan;Regina Kunz;Jos Kleijnen;Gerd Antes

  • Systematic review of water fluoridation.

    Marian S McDonagh;Penny F Whiting;Paul M Wilson;Alex J Sutton

Frequent Co-Authors

Khalid S. Khan
Khalid S. Khan University of Granada
Manuela A. Joore
Manuela A. Joore Maastricht University Medical Centre
Johan L. Severens
Johan L. Severens Erasmus University Rotterdam
Mike Clarke
Mike Clarke Queen's University Belfast
Douglas G. Altman
Douglas G. Altman University of Oxford
Stephen C. Robson
Stephen C. Robson Newcastle University
Michael Drummond
Michael Drummond University of York
Milo A. Puhan
Milo A. Puhan University of Zurich
David Moher
David Moher Ottawa Hospital

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 passionate about healthcare but seeking alternative or complementary career pathways to a traditional MD program, online degrees offer diverse, flexible options. Popular choices include nursing, medical billing and coding, and advanced practitioner roles.

For those interested in healthcare administration, medical billing and coding online courses cost less than many other medical degrees and can lead to in-demand, well-paying jobs. If you prefer patient care, most affordable online nurse practitioner programs provide a pathway to advanced clinical practice and greater responsibilities.

Entry-level nursing roles are accessible through online nursing courses designed for both new and advancing students. Career advancement is possible with terminal degrees—those aspiring to leadership and research in nursing should explore online nursing phd programs.

Online programs often offer affordability, flexible schedules, and the ability to study from anywhere. Whether you’re starting your healthcare journey or seeking to specialize further, these pathways provide practical routes to a rewarding career in medicine and healthcare.

Best Scientists Citing Jos Kleijnen

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles