World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Medicine 106 6486 6103 249 243 877 44686

Marcus J. Schultz publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Marcus J. Schultz between 2002 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Marcus J. Schultz published across 24 years, from 2002 to 2025, averaging 38 papers a year. Output peaked at 111 publications in 2021. 68 of the 911 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
25 50 75 100
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 2002 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 111. Peak 111 publications in 2021. 2002: 2 publications 2003: 5 publications 2004: 16 publications 2005: 32 publications 2006: 32 publications 2007: 37 publications 2008: 42 publications 2009: 24 publications 2010: 37 publications 2011: 35 publications 2012: 50 publications 2013: 27 publications 2014: 41 publications 2015: 52 publications 2016: 43 publications 2017: 59 publications 2018: 60 publications 2019: 59 publications 2020: 78 publications 2021: 111 publications 2022: 0 publications 2023: 1 publication 2024: 0 publications 2025: 68 publications
2002 2025

911 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Marcus J. Schultz: publications per year, 2002 to 2025
Year Publications
2002 2
2003 5
2004 16
2005 32
2006 32
2007 37
2008 42
2009 24
2010 37
2011 35
2012 50
2013 27
2014 41
2015 52
2016 43
2017 59
2018 60
2019 59
2020 78
2021 111
2022 0
2023 1
2024 0
2025 68
Total 911
Download as CSV

Marcus J. Schultz 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 Marcus J. Schultz 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, 861–880 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: 877 publications — 91st percentile

91% 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
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
861–880 155 877
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

Marcus J. Schultz 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 Marcus J. Schultz 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, 106–107 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: 106 D-Index — 69th percentile

69% 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
106–107 541 106
108–109 445
110–111 429
112–113 399
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

Overview

Marcus J. Schultz is affiliated with the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands. Their research predominantly concentrates in the field of Medicine, with a total of 1,068 publications contributing to this domain.

Their main subfields of study include Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Epidemiology, Emergency Medicine, and Surgery.

Research topics frequently addressed by Marcus J. Schultz cover:

  • Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
  • Intensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
  • Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
  • Airway Management and Intubation Techniques
  • Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
  • Ultrasound in Clinical Applications

They have collaborated extensively with several co-authors, including:

  • Lieuwe D. J. Bos (128 joint publications)
  • Frederique Paulus (117 joint publications)
  • Ary Serpa Neto (106 joint publications)
  • Tom van der Poll (63 joint publications)
  • Marry R. Smit (61 joint publications)

Marcus J. Schultz frequently publishes in a range of medical journals, notably:

  • American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (25 publications)
  • Intensive Care Medicine (19 publications)
  • Critical Care (18 publications)
  • Journal of Clinical Medicine (18 publications)
  • European Journal of Anaesthesiology (15 publications)

Among the recent scientific papers involving or relevant to their research are:

  • Afucosylated IgG characterizes enveloped viral responses and correlates with COVID-19 severity, 2020, Science
  • Lung Microbiota Predict Clinical Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients, 2020, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
  • Ventilation management and clinical outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 (PRoVENT-COVID): a national, multicentre, observational cohort study, 2020, The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
  • ERS/ESICM/ESCMID/ALAT guidelines for the management of severe community-acquired pneumonia, 2023, Intensive Care Medicine
  • Respiratory Support in COVID-19 Patients, with a Focus on Resource-Limited Settings, 2020, American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

Best Publications

  • Association between use of lung-protective ventilation with lower tidal volumes and clinical outcomes among patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis.

    Ary Serpa Neto;Sérgio Oliveira Cardoso;José Antônio Manetta;Victor Galvão Moura Pereira

  • Acute Coagulopathy of Trauma: Hypoperfusion Induces Systemic Anticoagulation and Hyperfibrinolysis

    Karim Brohi;Mitchell J. Cohen;Michael T. Ganter;Marcus J. Schultz

  • Standards for definitions and use of outcome measures for clinical effectiveness research in perioperative medicine: European Perioperative Clinical Outcome (EPCO) definitions: a statement from the ESA-ESICM joint taskforce on perioperative outcome measures.

    Ib Jammer;Nadine Wickboldt;Michael Sander;Andrew Smith

  • Biomaterial-Associated Infection: Locating the Finish Line in the Race for the Surface

    Henk J. Busscher;Henny C. van der Mei;Guruprakash Subbiahdoss;Paul C. Jutte

  • Effects of selective decontamination of digestive tract on mortality and acquisition of resistant bacteria in intensive care: a randomised controlled trial

    Evert de Jonge;Marcus J Schultz;Lodewijk Spanjaard;Patrick M M Bossuyt

  • High versus low positive end-expiratory pressure during general anaesthesia for open abdominal surgery (PROVHILO trial): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

    Hemmes Sn;Gama de Abreu M;Pelosi P

  • Protective Mechanical Ventilation During General Anesthesia for Open Abdominal Surgery Improves Postoperative Pulmonary Function

    Paolo Severgnini;Gabriele Selmo;Christian Lanza;Alessandro Chiesa

  • Broad defects in the energy metabolism of leukocytes underlie immunoparalysis in sepsis

    Shih Chin Cheng;Brendon P. Scicluna;Rob J W Arts;Mark S. Gresnigt

  • Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with conventional tidal volumes for patients without acute lung injury: a preventive randomized controlled trial

    Rogier M Determann;Annick Anm Royakkers;Esther K Wolthuis;Alexander P. Vlaar

  • Incidence, Risk Factors, and Attributable Mortality of Secondary Infections in the Intensive Care Unit After Admission for Sepsis

    Lonneke A van Vught;Peter M C Klein Klouwenberg;Cristian Spitoni;Brendon P Scicluna

  • Association between driving pressure and development of postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation for general anaesthesia: a meta-analysis of individual patient data.

    Ary Serpa Neto;Sabrine N.T. Hemmes;Carmen S.V. Barbas;Martin Beiderlinden

  • Erratum to: 36th International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine: Brussels, Belgium. 15-18 March 2016

    R. M. Bateman;M. D. Sharpe;J. E. Jagger;C. G. Ellis

  • Volatile Metabolites of Pathogens: A Systematic Review

    Lieuwe D. J. Bos;Peter J. Sterk;Marcus J. Schultz

  • Intraoperative protective mechanical ventilation for prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications: a comprehensive review of the role of tidal volume, positive end-expiratory pressure, and lung recruitment maneuvers.

    Andreas Güldner;Thomas Kiss;Ary Serpa Neto;Sabrine N. T. Hemmes

  • Mechanical power of ventilation is associated with mortality in critically ill patients: an analysis of patients in two observational cohorts

    Ary Serpa Neto;Rodrigo Octavio Deliberato;Alistair E. W. Johnson;Lieuwe D. Bos

  • Mechanical ventilation with lower tidal volumes and positive end-expiratory pressure prevents pulmonary inflammation in patients without preexisting lung injury.

    Esther K. Wolthuis;Goda Choi;Mark C. Dessing;Paul Bresser

  • What tidal volumes should be used in patients without acute lung injury

    Marcus J. Schultz;Jack J. Haitsma;Arthur S. Slutsky;Ognjen Gajic

  • Protective versus Conventional Ventilation for Surgery: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis

    Ary Serpa Neto;Ary Serpa Neto;Sabrine N.T. Hemmes;Carmen S.V. Barbas;Martin Beiderlinden

  • Predisposing factors for hypoglycemia in the intensive care unit.

    Titia M. Vriesendorp;Susanne van Santen;J. Hans DeVries;Evert de Jonge

  • Usefulness of suPAR as a biological marker in patients with systemic inflammation or infection: a systematic review

    Yara Backes;Yara Backes;Koenraad F. van der Sluijs;David P. Mackie;Frank Tacke

Frequent Co-Authors

Paolo Pelosi
Paolo Pelosi University of Genoa
Tom van der Poll
Tom van der Poll University of Amsterdam
Arjen M. Dondorp
Arjen M. Dondorp Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit
Marcel Levi
Marcel Levi University of Amsterdam
Joris J. T. H. Roelofs
Joris J. T. H. Roelofs University of Amsterdam
Marc J. M. Bonten
Marc J. M. Bonten Utrecht University
Antonio Artigas
Antonio Artigas Autonomous University of Barcelona
Peter J. Sterk
Peter J. Sterk University of Amsterdam
Samir Jaber
Samir Jaber University of Montpellier
Rupert M. Pearse
Rupert M. Pearse Queen Mary University of London

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 alternative or complementary paths in healthcare can open up more opportunities, both academically and professionally. One popular option for those interested in mental health is earning a degree through shortest online pmhnp programs, which can quickly prepare you for advanced practice roles in psychiatric nursing.

For future leaders and administrators, pursuing a healthcare administration degree is another strategic choice. Affordability is often a major consideration; you may want to investigate programs like those featured in the healthcare administration degree cost rankings to find quality education at a lower price.

Graduate-level education also offers growth potential. The cheapest mha programs online healthcare highlight cost-effective master’s programs that can help you prepare for senior positions without significant financial strain. Those aiming to reach the highest levels in nursing may consider dnp online programs cheap to become experts or leaders in clinical settings.

Each of these online degrees offers flexible learning options designed for today’s busy students, along with strong career prospects upon graduation.

Best Scientists Citing Marcus J. Schultz

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles