World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Kathleen N. Lohr

Kathleen N. Lohr

Award Badge
Best Female Scientists
2025

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Best Female Scientists 113 758 724 460 436 581 64295
Medicine 113 4852 4552 2630 2437 526 63725

Kathleen N. Lohr publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Kathleen N. Lohr between 1979 and 2020, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Kathleen N. Lohr published across 42 years, from 1979 to 2020, averaging 13.8 papers a year. Output peaked at 94 publications in 1990. 4 of the 581 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
20 40 60 80
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1979 to 2020. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 94. Peak 94 publications in 1990. 1979: 2 publications 1980: 5 publications 1981: 14 publications 1982: 8 publications 1983: 8 publications 1984: 10 publications 1985: 13 publications 1986: 7 publications 1987: 8 publications 1988: 5 publications 1989: 20 publications 1990: 94 publications 1991: 41 publications 1992: 17 publications 1993: 12 publications 1994: 22 publications 1995: 2 publications 1996: 17 publications 1997: 4 publications 1998: 2 publications 1999: 4 publications 2000: 5 publications 2001: 14 publications 2002: 22 publications 2003: 17 publications 2004: 24 publications 2005: 11 publications 2006: 23 publications 2007: 16 publications 2008: 9 publications 2009: 12 publications 2010: 8 publications 2011: 18 publications 2012: 8 publications 2013: 15 publications 2014: 9 publications 2015: 21 publications 2016: 14 publications 2017: 10 publications 2018: 6 publications 2019: 1 publication 2020: 3 publications
1979 2020

581 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Kathleen N. Lohr: publications per year, 1979 to 2020
Year Publications
1979 2
1980 5
1981 14
1982 8
1983 8
1984 10
1985 13
1986 7
1987 8
1988 5
1989 20
1990 94
1991 41
1992 17
1993 12
1994 22
1995 2
1996 17
1997 4
1998 2
1999 4
2000 5
2001 14
2002 22
2003 17
2004 24
2005 11
2006 23
2007 16
2008 9
2009 12
2010 8
2011 18
2012 8
2013 15
2014 9
2015 21
2016 14
2017 10
2018 6
2019 1
2020 3
Total 581
Download as CSV

Kathleen N. Lohr 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 Kathleen N. Lohr sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
200 400 600 800
Bar chart with 86 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 101–120 to 1,796+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 922. Most scientists, 922, have 341–360 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 1,796 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 521–540 publications, is where this scientist sits. 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
101–120 publications 1,796+

This scientist: 526 publications — 62nd percentile

62% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Medicine scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 20,134 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
101–120 5
121–140 26
141–160 73
161–180 155
181–200 230
201–220 363
221–240 487
241–260 545
261–280 722
281–300 768
301–320 834
321–340 895
341–360 922
361–380 838
381–400 861
401–420 918
421–440 806
441–460 771
461–480 751
481–500 713
501–520 617
521–540 610 526
541–560 537
561–580 504
581–600 509
601–620 396
621–640 386
641–660 371
661–680 340
681–700 336
701–720 307
721–740 259
741–760 230
761–780 228
781–800 217
801–820 204
821–840 186
841–860 177
861–880 155
881–900 139
901–920 145
921–940 116
941–960 133
961–980 91
981–1,000 96
1,001–1,020 77
1,021–1,040 70
1,041–1,060 63
1,061–1,080 77
1,081–1,100 49
1,101–1,120 54
1,121–1,140 49
1,141–1,160 51
1,161–1,180 35
1,181–1,200 39
1,201–1,220 26
1,221–1,240 37
1,241–1,260 36
1,261–1,280 27
1,281–1,300 32
1,301–1,320 28
1,321–1,340 17
1,341–1,360 30
1,361–1,380 28
1,381–1,400 17
1,401–1,420 21
1,421–1,440 15
1,441–1,460 12
1,461–1,480 12
1,481–1,500 18
1,501–1,520 14
1,521–1,540 17
1,541–1,560 15
1,561–1,580 6
1,581–1,600 2
1,601–1,620 12
1,621–1,640 11
1,641–1,660 8
1,661–1,680 5
1,681–1,700 5
1,701–1,720 10
1,721–1,740 12
1,741–1,760 14
1,761–1,780 6
1,781–1,795 5
1,796+ 100
Download as CSV

Kathleen N. Lohr 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 Kathleen N. Lohr sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
250 500 750 1,000
Bar chart with 75 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 70–71 to 217+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 1,027. Most scientists, 1,027, have 82–83 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 217 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 112–113 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 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
70–71 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.

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Medicine scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 20,134 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
70–71 226
72–73 391
74–75 574
76–77 730
78–79 891
80–81 972
82–83 1,027
84–85 1,003
86–87 960
88–89 970
90–91 922
92–93 839
94–95 808
96–97 779
98–99 668
100–101 611
102–103 630
104–105 513
106–107 541
108–109 445
110–111 429
112–113 399 113
114–115 393
116–117 318
118–119 302
120–121 287
122–123 255
124–125 256
126–127 252
128–129 230
130–131 179
132–133 168
134–135 163
136–137 159
138–139 134
140–141 134
142–143 118
144–145 109
146–147 106
148–149 74
150–151 79
152–153 80
154–155 87
156–157 57
158–159 74
160–161 69
162–163 60
164–165 53
166–167 39
168–169 42
170–171 32
172–173 39
174–175 40
176–177 28
178–179 19
180–181 23
182–183 31
184–185 18
186–187 20
188–189 22
190–191 13
192–193 21
194–195 12
196–197 12
198–199 14
200–201 15
202–203 13
204–205 10
206–207 8
208–209 4
210–211 12
212–213 11
214–215 10
216 4
217+ 98
Download as CSV

Research.com Recognitions

  • 2025 - Research.com Best Female Scientists Award

Overview

Kathleen N. Lohr is affiliated with RTI International in the United States. Their recent research contributions cover a range of topics primarily related to clinical psychology, public health, and health outcomes. The scientist has consistently published in venues such as UNC Libraries and the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

Among their notable papers are:

  • Medication Therapy Management Interventions in Outpatient Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, 2021, UNC Libraries
  • Interventions to Improve Health Outcomes for Patients with Low Literacy: A Systematic Review, 2020, UNC Libraries
  • Binge-Eating Disorder in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, 2020, UNC Libraries
  • REPRINT OF: Current Methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: A Review of the Process, 2020, American Journal of Preventive Medicine
  • Literacy and Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review of the Literature, 2020, UNC Libraries

The scientist's work spans several subfields, including:

  • Clinical Psychology
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Geriatrics and Gerontology
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • General Health Professions

Key research topics addressed by Kathleen N. Lohr include:

  • Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
  • Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
  • Clinical Practice Guidelines Implementation
  • Public Health Policies and Education

Kathleen N. Lohr has collaborated frequently with several researchers, including:

  • Meera Viswanathan
  • Emmanuel Coker-Schwimmer
  • Nancy D Berkman
  • Carla Bann
  • Stacey Sheridan

Their publication record predominantly features contributions in systematic reviews and meta-analyses that synthesize evidence across clinical and public health domains. The scientist's work addresses intervention strategies, health literacy, and complex health behaviors, reflecting interdisciplinary engagement with both psychological and societal health challenges.

Best Publications

  • Perinatal depression: a systematic review of prevalence and incidence.

    Norma I. Gavin;Bradley Neil Gaynes;Kathleen N. Lohr;Samantha E Meltzer-Brody

  • Literacy and health outcomes

    Darren A. DeWalt;Nancy D. Berkman;Stacey Sheridan;Kathleen N. Lohr

  • Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process.

    Russell P. Harris;Mark Helfand;Steven H. Woolf;Kathleen N. Lohr

  • Clinical practice guidelines : directions for a new program

    Marilyn J. Field;Kathleen N. Lohr

  • Perinatal depression: prevalence, screening accuracy, and screening outcomes.

    BN Gaynes;N Gavin;S Meltzer-Brody;KN Lohr

  • Guidelines for Clinical Practice: From Development to Use

    Marilyn J. Field;Kathleen N. Lohr

  • Community‐Based Participatory Research: Assessing the Evidence: Summary

    M Viswanathan;A Ammerman;E Eng;G Garlehner

  • Screening for Depression in Adults: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

    Michael P. Pignone;Bradley N. Gaynes;Jerry L. Rushton;Catherine Mills Burchell

  • Health literacy interventions and outcomes: an updated systematic review.

    Nancy D Berkman;Stacey L Sheridan;Katrina E Donahue;David J Halpern

  • Community-based participatory research: assessing the evidence

    M Viswanathan;A Ammerman;E Eng;G Garlehner

  • Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence.

    S West;V King;T S Carey;K N Lohr

  • Does free care improve adults' health? Results from a randomized controlled trial.

    Robert H. Brook;John E. Ware;William H. Rogers;Emmett B. Keeler

  • Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

    Michael Pignone;Melissa Rich;Steven M. Teutsch;Alfred O. Berg

  • Interventions to improve adherence to self-administered medications for chronic diseases in the United States: a systematic review

    Meera Viswanathan;Carol E. Golin;Christine D. Jones;Mahima Ashok

  • Primary Care: America's Health in a New Era

    Donaldson Ms;Yordy Kd;Lohr Kn

  • Screening and interventions for obesity in adults: summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

    Kathleen M. McTigue;Russell Harris;Brian Hemphill;Linda Lux

  • A systematic review of outcomes of maternal weight gain according to the Institute of Medicine recommendations: Birthweight, fetal growth, and postpartum weight retention

    Anna Maria Siega-Riz;Meera Viswanathan;Merry K. Moos;Andrea Deierlein

  • Bulimia nervosa treatment: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

    Cynthia M. Bulik;Nancy D. Berkman;Kimberly A. Brownley;Jan A. Sedway

  • Screening for dementia in primary care: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

    Malaz Boustani;Britt Peterson;Laura Hanson;Russell Harris

  • The Definition of Quality and Approaches to Its Assessment

    Robert H. Brook;Kathleen N. Lohr

Frequent Co-Authors

Robert H. Brook
Robert H. Brook RAND Corporation
Bradley N. Gaynes
Bradley N. Gaynes University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Michael Pignone
Michael Pignone The University of Texas at Austin
Joseph P. Newhouse
Joseph P. Newhouse Harvard University
Emmett B. Keeler
Emmett B. Keeler RAND Corporation
Cynthia M. Bulik
Cynthia M. Bulik University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
John E. Ware
John E. Ware University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School
Betsy Foxman
Betsy Foxman University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Arleen Leibowitz
Arleen Leibowitz University of California, Los Angeles
William H. Rogers
William H. Rogers Tufts Medical Center

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 online degrees in healthcare can be a practical way to prepare for a career in medicine. Today, accredited programs offer flexibility and affordability without sacrificing quality. For those interested in administrative roles, consider enrolling in a low cost medical coding and billing online program. This path provides entry into the healthcare industry while managing costs.

Nursing is another in-demand career, with multiple online education options. An nursing degree online lets you begin or advance your path as an RN, often with more affordable tuition. If you’re seeking advanced clinical roles and independence, look into affordable np programs, which train you to become a Nurse Practitioner.

For those aiming to shape the future of healthcare through research or leadership, an online nursing doctorate may open doors in academia or policy. Each of these online pathways can help you build a rewarding medical career that fits your schedule and budget.

Best Scientists Citing Kathleen N. Lohr

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles