World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Award Badge
Medicine
UK
2026

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
155
Citations
455883
World Ranking
924
National Ranking
97

Julian P T Higgins 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 Julian P T Higgins 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: 381 publications — 34th percentile

34% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Julian P T Higgins 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 Julian P T Higgins 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: 155 D-Index — 95th percentile

95% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Research.com Recognitions

  • 2026 - Research.com Medicine in United Kingdom Leader Award

Overview

Julian P T Higgins is affiliated with the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom and has made significant contributions in the field of medicine, focusing particularly on meta-analysis and systematic reviews.

The scientist's main areas of study include:

  • Medicine
  • Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty
  • Genetics
  • Molecular Biology
  • Clinical Psychology
  • Epidemiology

Their research covers topics such as:

  • Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Mental Health Research Topics
  • Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
  • Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • COVID-19 and Mental Health

Julian P T Higgins has published extensively in various venues, with frequent contributions to:

  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
  • F1000Research
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
  • Harvard Dataverse
  • Research Synthesis Methods

Some of their recent papers include:

  • "Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): An R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments", 2020, Research Synthesis Methods
  • "Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization", 2021, JAMA
  • "Association Between Administration of Systemic Corticosteroids and Mortality Among Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19", 2020, JAMA
  • "Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology using mendelian randomisation (STROBE-MR): explanation and elaboration", 2021, BMJ
  • "CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis", 2020, PLoS Medicine

The scientist has collaborated frequently with colleagues such as:

  • Lena Schmidt
  • Francesca Spiga
  • Sarah Dawson
  • Luke A. McGuinness
  • Jelena Savović

Best Publications

  • Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses

    Julian P T Higgins;Simon G Thompson;Jonathan J Deeks;Douglas G Altman

  • Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

    Julian P. T. Higgins;Sally Green

  • Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies

    Julian Pt Higgins;Douglas G Altman

  • Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis

    Julian P. T. Higgins;Simon G. Thompson

  • The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

    Julian P T Higgins;Douglas G Altman;Peter C Gøtzsche;Peter Jüni

  • ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions.

    Jonathan A. C. Sterne;Miguel A Hernan;Barnaby C Reeves;Jelena Savovic;Jelena Savovic

  • RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.

    Jonathan A.C. Sterne;Jelena Savović;Jelena Savović;Matthew J. Page;Roy G. Elbers

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

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

  • Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration

    Jpt Higgins;S. R. Green;J Higgins

  • Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials

    Jonathan A C Sterne;Alex J Sutton;John P A Ioannidis;Norma Terrin

  • Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies

    J P Higgins;D G Altman

  • Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

    Miranda Cumpston;Tianjing Li;Matthew J Page;Jacqueline Chandler

  • Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

    Andrea Cipriani;Andrea Cipriani;Toshi A Furukawa;Georgia Salanti;Anna Chaimani;Anna Chaimani;Anna Chaimani

  • Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement

    Julian Little;Julian P.T. Higgins;John P.A. Ioannidis;John P.A. Ioannidis;David Moher

  • How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?

    Simon G. Thompson;Julian P. T. Higgins

  • Chapter 9: Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta-Analyses

    J J Deeks;J P Higgins;D G Altman

  • GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency

    Gordon H. Guyatt;Andrew D. Oxman;Regina Kunz;James Woodcock

  • Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses.

    Richard D Riley;Julian P T Higgins;Jonathan J Deeks

  • Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis

    Andrea Cipriani;Andrea Cipriani;Toshiaki A Furukawa;Georgia Salanti;John R Geddes

  • Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses

    Jonathan J Deeks;Julian Pt Higgins;Douglas G Altman

Frequent Co-Authors

Jonathan A C Sterne
Jonathan A C Sterne University of Bristol
Larry V. Hedges
Larry V. Hedges Northwestern University
John P. A. Ioannidis
John P. A. Ioannidis Stanford University
Julian Little
Julian Little University of Ottawa
Jonathan J Deeks
Jonathan J Deeks University of Birmingham
Douglas G. Altman
Douglas G. Altman University of Oxford
Muin J. Khoury
Muin J. Khoury Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Andrea Cipriani
Andrea Cipriani University of Oxford
Ian R. White
Ian R. White University College London
Marta Gwinn
Marta Gwinn Emory 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

Exploring careers in medicine extends well beyond becoming a physician. Many healthcare roles can be started with a flexible online education, and some offer relatively easier admissions and quicker paths to employment.

For those seeking a hands-on clinical role, you may want to know what is the easiest nursing school to get into. Some nursing schools even offer programs for students who wish to avoid extensive entrance exams—discover more about nursing schools that don't require teas.

Not all medical careers involve direct patient care. If you prefer administrative or behind-the-scenes roles, consider medical billing and coding online schools, which offer specialized training for in-demand jobs in the healthcare industry. Alternatively, you can prepare for management roles with one of the healthcare administration degrees available through accelerated online programs.

Whether your interests lie in clinical, administrative, or technology-driven careers, these online pathways offer flexible study options and diverse opportunities within healthcare in the USA.

Best Scientists Citing Julian P T Higgins

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles