World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Award Badge
Best Scientists
2025
Award Badge
Medicine
Netherlands
2026

D-Index & Metrics

Best Scientists

D-Index
188
Citations
156569
World Ranking
449
National Ranking
10

Medicine

D-Index
188
Citations
165237
World Ranking
272
National Ranking
8

Lex M. Bouter 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 Lex M. Bouter 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: 876 publications — 90th percentile

90% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Lex M. Bouter 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 Lex M. Bouter 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: 188 D-Index — 99th percentile

99% 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 Netherlands Leader Award
  • 2025 - Research.com Best Scientists Award
  • 2025 - Research.com Medicine in Netherlands Leader Award
  • 2023 - Research.com Medicine in Netherlands Leader Award
  • 2022 - Research.com Medicine in Netherlands Leader Award

Overview

Lex M. Bouter is affiliated with Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in the Netherlands and contributes extensively to research across medicine, social sciences, and decision sciences. Their work spans a variety of subfields, including public health, environmental and occupational health, statistics, probability, uncertainty, safety research, health informatics, and sociology and political science.

The main topics addressed in their research include ethics in clinical research, academic integrity and plagiarism, artificial intelligence in healthcare and education, meta-analysis and systematic reviews, scientometrics and bibliometrics research, academic publishing and open access, and health and medical research impacts.

Among the recent papers associated with Lex M. Bouter are:
- COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: a Delphi study (2020), published in BMC Medical Research Methodology
- The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity (2020), published in PLoS Biology
- Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands (2022), published in PLoS ONE
- Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk (2020), published in Nature
- The methodological quality of 176,620 randomized controlled trials published between 1966 and 2018 reveals a positive trend but also an urgent need for improvement (2021), published in PLoS Biology

Lex M. Bouter collaborates frequently with several researchers including Joeri K. Tijdink, Maurice P. Zeegers, Ana Marušić, Natalie Evans, and David Moher.

Their publications are often found in journals such as Science and Engineering Ethics, Accountability in Research, F1000Research, Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research), and PLoS Biology.

In addition to journal articles, Lex M. Bouter has contributed to book publications, including the 2023 book Leerboek epidemiologie published by Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.

Best Publications

  • Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires

    Caroline B. Terwee;Sandra D.M. Bot;Michael R. de Boer;Daniëlle A.W.M. van der Windt

  • Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews

    Beverley J Shea;Jeremy M Grimshaw;George A Wells;Maarten Boers

  • The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes.

    Lidwine B. Mokkink;Caroline B. Terwee;Donald L. Patrick;Jordi Alonso

  • The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study

    Lidwine B. Mokkink;Caroline B. Terwee;Donald L. Patrick;Jordi Alonso

  • Elevated C-reactive protein levels in overweight and obese adults.

    Marjolein Visser;Lex M. Bouter;Geraldine M. McQuillan;Mark H. Wener

  • The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus.

    Arianne P. Verhagen;Henrica C.W. de Vet;Robert A. de Bie;Alphons G.H. Kessels

  • Ankle brachial index combined with Framingham risk score to predict cardiovascular events and mortality: A meta-analysis

    F.G.R. Fowkes;G.D. Murray;I. Butcher;C.L. Heald

  • Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group.

    Maurits van Tulder;Andrea Furlan;Claire Bombardier;Lex Bouter

  • How to measure comorbidity: a critical review of available methods

    Vincent de Groot;Heleen Beckerman;Gustaaf J Lankhorst;Lex M Bouter

  • COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures

    C. A.C. Prinsen;L. B. Mokkink;L. M. Bouter;J. Alonso

  • Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change.

    Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo;Rick A. Deyo;P Stratford;Gordon Waddell

  • AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.

    Beverley J. Shea;Candyce Hamel;George A. Wells;Lex M. Bouter

  • Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist

    Caroline B. Terwee;Lidwine B. Mokkink;Dirk L. Knol;Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo

  • When to use agreement versus reliability measures

    Henrica C.W. de Vet;Caroline B. Terwee;Dirk L. Knol;Lex M. Bouter

  • COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

    L. B. Mokkink;H. C. W. de Vet;C. A. C. Prinsen;D. L. Patrick

  • The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content

    Lidwine B Mokkink;Caroline B Terwee;Dirk L Knol;Paul W Stratford

  • Glucose tolerance and cardiovascular mortality - Comparison of fasting and 2-hour diagnostic criteria

    K. Borch-Johnsen;A. Neil;B. Balkau;S. Larsen

  • Conservative treatment of acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of the most common interventions.

    M. W. Van Tulder;B. W. Koes;L. M. Bouter

  • COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study

    C. B. Terwee;C. A.C. Prinsen;A. Chiarotto;M. J. Westerman

  • Systematic review of psychosocial factors at work and private life as risk factors for back pain.

    W. E. Hoogendoorn;M. N. M. Van Poppel;P. M. Bongers;B. W. Koes

Frequent Co-Authors

Bart W. Koes
Bart W. Koes Erasmus University Rotterdam
Giel Nijpels
Giel Nijpels VU University Medical Center
Robert J. Heine
Robert J. Heine VU University Medical Center
Coen D.A. Stehouwer
Coen D.A. Stehouwer Maastricht University
Jacqueline M. Dekker
Jacqueline M. Dekker VU University Medical Center
Henrica C.W. de Vet
Henrica C.W. de Vet University of Amsterdam
Caroline B. Terwee
Caroline B. Terwee VU University Medical Center
Joost Dekker
Joost Dekker University of Amsterdam
Maurits W. van Tulder
Maurits W. van Tulder Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

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

Choosing to study Medicine in the USA opens many career doors, and online degrees provide added flexibility for students and professionals. For those aiming for leadership roles in healthcare, you might consider a cahme accredited online mha. These programs help develop administrative skills and are widely recognized by healthcare employers.

Many nurses look to further their education with streamlined options like the rn to bsn online no clinicals route, which enables working nurses to advance their qualifications with minimal disruption to their schedules. For those seeking doctoral-level nursing degrees, time-efficient choices such as a 1 year dnp program online make it possible to progress quickly.

If you’re exploring options based on program intensity or flexibility, resources like easiest dnp program reddit provide guidance and insights from current and former students. These paths can lead to rewarding positions in clinical practice, administration, or academia, ensuring diverse opportunities for those interested in healthcare careers.

Best Scientists Citing Lex M. Bouter

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles