World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
107
Citations
229049
World Ranking
6080
National Ranking
3255

Kenneth F. Schulz publications per year

1976: 1 publications 1977: 5 publications 1978: 4 publications 1979: 1 publications 1980: 3 publications 1981: 3 publications 1982: 3 publications 1983: 6 publications 1984: 5 publications 1985: 6 publications 1986: 4 publications 1987: 0 publications 1988: 1 publications 1989: 0 publications 1990: 1 publications 1991: 1 publications 1992: 1 publications 1993: 1 publications 1994: 4 publications 1995: 10 publications 1996: 8 publications 1997: 3 publications 1998: 6 publications 1999: 2 publications 2000: 4 publications 2001: 11 publications 2002: 37 publications 2003: 10 publications 2004: 7 publications 2005: 20 publications 2006: 17 publications 2007: 13 publications 2008: 17 publications 2009: 6 publications 2010: 21 publications 2011: 15 publications 2012: 11 publications 2013: 10 publications 2014: 13 publications 2015: 2 publications 2016: 3 publications 2017: 2 publications 2018: 2 publications 2019: 3 publications 2020: 0 publications 2021: 1 publications 2022: 3 publications 2023: 2 publications 2024: 2 publications 2025: 21 publications
1976 2025

332 publications in total across all disciplines

Kenneth F. Schulz 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 Kenneth F. Schulz 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: 305 publications — 18th percentile

18% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Kenneth F. Schulz 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 Kenneth F. Schulz 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: 107 D-Index — 70th percentile

70% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Kenneth F. Schulz is affiliated with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the United States. Their research encompasses several fields and subfields, with a focus on topics related to clinical trials, health systems, and statistical methods.

The scientist has contributed significantly to the following main topics of work:

  • Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Delphi Technique in Research
  • Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes

Their research spans multiple subfields including:

  • Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty
  • Economics and Econometrics
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • General Health Professions
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Kenneth F. Schulz has frequently published in these venues:

  • UNC Libraries
  • BMJ
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
  • JAMA
  • Nature Medicine

Frequent co-authors include:

  • David Moher
  • Sally Hopewell
  • Isabelle Boutron
  • Asbjørn Hróbjartsson
  • An-Wen Chan

Representative recent papers authored or co-authored by Kenneth F. Schulz include:

  • Guidelines for Reporting Trial Protocols and Completed Trials Modified Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Extenuating Circumstances, 2021, JAMA
  • CONSORT 2025 statement: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials, 2025, BMJ
  • An update to SPIRIT and CONSORT reporting guidelines to enhance transparency in randomized trials, 2022, Nature Medicine
  • CONSORT 2025 statement: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials, 2025, The Lancet
  • SPIRIT 2025 statement: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials, 2025, BMJ

Best Publications

  • 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

  • CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

    K F Schulz;D G Altman;D Moher

  • CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.

    Kenneth F Schulz;Douglas G Altman;David Moher;David Moher

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

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

  • The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials.

    D Moher;K F Schulz;D G Altman

  • CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

    David Moher;Sally Hopewell;Kenneth F Schulz;Victor M. Montori

  • The consort statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials

    D Moher;K F Schulz;D Altman

  • Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.

    Kenneth F. Schulz;Iain Chalmers;Richard J. Hayes;Douglas G. Altman

  • Spirit 2013 statement: Defining standard protocol items for clinical trials

    An Wen Chan;Jennifer M. Tetzlaff;Douglas G. Altman;Andreas Laupacis

  • The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials

    David Moher;Kenneth F Schulz;Douglas G Altman

  • SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials

    An Wen Chan;Jennifer M. Tetzlaff;Peter C. Gøtzsche;Douglas G. Altman

  • CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials.

    Kenneth F Schulz;Douglas G Altman;David Moher

  • Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement

    C Begg;M Cho;S Eastwood;R Horton

  • The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration

    Douglas G. Altman;Kenneth F. Schulz;David Moher;Matthias Egger

  • Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study.

    Lesley Wood;Matthias Egger;Lise Lotte Gluud;Kenneth F Schulz

  • Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration.

    Isabelle Boutron;David Moher;Douglas G Altman;Kenneth F Schulz

  • The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials

    David Moher;Kenneth F. Schulz;Douglas G. Altman

  • CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials

    Kenneth F Schulz;Douglas G Altman;David Moher

  • [CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version)]

    David Moher;Sally Hopewell;Kenneth F Schulz;Victor Montori

  • CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials

    K F Schulz;D G Altman;D Moher;D Moher;V Barbour

Frequent Co-Authors

Douglas G. Altman
Douglas G. Altman University of Oxford
David A. Grimes
David A. Grimes University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
David Moher
David Moher Ottawa Hospital
Matthias Egger
Matthias Egger University of Bern
Sally Hopewell
Sally Hopewell University of Oxford
Diana Elbourne
Diana Elbourne London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Mike Clarke
Mike Clarke Queen's University Belfast
John P. A. Ioannidis
John P. A. Ioannidis Stanford University
Richard J. Hayes
Richard J. Hayes London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

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 exploring alternative paths in the healthcare field? The growing availability of online programs allows you to balance study with work or family commitments, expanding your career options beyond traditional medical degrees.

For those looking to advance quickly, a healthcare administration associate degree online can prepare you for entry-level roles in medical offices and hospital administration. If you're already a registered nurse, consider programs like adn to np bridge programs, which help you move up seamlessly to nurse practitioner roles by bridging your ADN to an MSN.

Nutrition is another rewarding area. An online dietitian degree offers flexible learning for those wanting to become dietitians or nutrition counselors. For leadership ambitions, pursuing one of the online mha programs cahme accredited can open doors to upper-level management in hospitals and healthcare organizations.

Each pathway has distinct admission requirements and advantages, so consider your professional goals, current qualifications, and preferred area of healthcare as you choose your next step.

Best Scientists Citing Kenneth F. Schulz

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles