World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
103
Citations
69517
World Ranking
7164
National Ranking
698

Mark Sculpher 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 Mark Sculpher 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: 519 publications — 61st percentile

61% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Mark Sculpher 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 Mark Sculpher 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: 103 D-Index — 65th percentile

65% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Mark Sculpher is affiliated with the University of York in the United Kingdom. Their research spans the intersection of medicine and economics, with a focus on health systems, economic evaluations, and quality of life. The primary fields of study include Medicine and Economics, Econometrics and Finance.

The scientist's work covers multiple subfields, notably:

  • Economics and Econometrics
  • General Health Professions
  • Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
  • Infectious Diseases
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Key research topics addressed in their publications include:

  • Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
  • Healthcare Cost, Quality, Practices
  • Healthcare Policy and Management
  • Global Maternal and Child Health
  • Global Health Care Issues
  • Antibiotic Use and Resistance

Sculpher has contributed to numerous research articles published in several frequent venues such as:

  • Value in Health
  • PharmacoEconomics
  • Health Economics
  • Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
  • Medical Decision Making

Recent notable papers include:

  • The Lancet Commission on prostate cancer: planning for the surge in cases, 2024, The Lancet
  • Economic analysis of the prevalence and clinical and economic burden of medication error in England, 2020, BMJ Quality & Safety
  • Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST): protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate invitation to community-based low-dose CT screening for lung cancer versus usual care in a targeted population at risk, 2020, BMJ Open
  • Developing the EQ-5D-5L Value Set for Uganda Using the 'Lite' Protocol, 2021, PharmacoEconomics
  • Antimicrobial Resistance: Is Health Technology Assessment Part of the Solution or Part of the Problem?, 2021, Value in Health

Collaborative research is a significant aspect of Sculpher's career. Frequent co-authors include:

  • Beth Woods
  • Paul Revill
  • Karl Claxton
  • Simon Walker
  • Jessica Ochalek

The scientist's work integrates economic analysis and health policy perspectives, addressing critical issues in healthcare practices, pharmaceutical economics, and antimicrobial resistance. This multi-disciplinary approach is reflected in the variety of topics and journals in which they publish.

Best Publications

  • Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes

    Michael F. Drummond;Mark J. Sculpher;Karl Claxton;Greg L. Stoddart

  • Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation

    Andrew Briggs;Karl Claxton;Mark J Sculpher

  • Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine

    Gillian D. Sanders;Peter J. Neumann;Anirban Basu;Dan W. Brock

  • Primary total hip replacement surgery: a systematic review of outcomes and modelling of cost-effectiveness associated with different prostheses.

    R Fitzpatrick;E Shortall;M Sculpher;D Murray

  • Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

    Elisabeth Fenwick;Karl Claxton;Mark Sculpher

  • Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold

    Karl Philip Claxton;Stephen Martin;Marta O Soares;Nigel Rice

  • Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis : the importance of controlling for baseline utility

    Andrea Manca;Neil Hawkins;Mark J. Sculpher

  • Country-level cost effectiveness thresholds: initial estimates and the need for further research

    Beth Woods;Paul Revill;Mark Sculpher;Karl Claxton

  • Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment

    Z Philips;L Ginnelly;M Sculpher;K Claxton

  • Endovascular aneurysm repair and outcome in patients unfit for open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 2): randomised controlled trial

    R.M. Greenhalgh;L.C. Brown;D. Epstein;G.P.S. Kwong

  • Model parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group-6.

    Andrew H. Briggs;Milton C. Weinstein;Elisabeth A. L. Fenwick;Jonathan Karnon

  • Model Parameter Estimation and Uncertainty: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-6

    Andrew H. Briggs;Milton C. Weinstein;Elisabeth A.L. Fenwick;Jonathan Karnon

  • Good Practice Guidelines for Decision-Analytic Modelling in Health Technology Assessment: A Review and Consolidation of Quality Assessment

    Zoë Philips;Laura Bojke;Mark Sculpher;Karl Claxton

  • Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: The role of sensitivity analysis

    Andrew Briggs;Mark Sculpher;Martin Buxton

  • Partial-breast radiotherapy after breast conservation surgery for patients with early breast cancer (UK IMPORT LOW trial): 5-year results from a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial

    Charlotte E Coles;Clare L Griffin;Anna M Kirby;Jenny Titley

  • Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra

    Karl Claxton;Mark Sculpher;Chris McCabe;Andrew Briggs

  • A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute For Clinical Excellence (NICE)

    Karl Claxton;Mark Sculpher;Michael Drummond

  • Whither trial-based economic evaluation for health care decision making?

    Mark J. Sculpher;Karl Claxton;Mike Drummond;Chris McCabe

  • Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies.

    Sculpher Mj;Pang Fs;Manca A;Drummond Mf

  • Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis

    A. E. Ades;Mark Sculpher;Alex Sutton;Keith Abrams

Frequent Co-Authors

Karl Claxton
Karl Claxton University of York
Andrew Briggs
Andrew Briggs University of Glasgow
Keith R. Abrams
Keith R. Abrams University of Leicester
Michael Drummond
Michael Drummond University of York
Nigel Rice
Nigel Rice University of York
Peter C. Smith
Peter C. Smith Imperial College London
Nancy Devlin
Nancy Devlin University of Melbourne
Diana M. Gibb
Diana M. Gibb University College London
John Brazier
John Brazier University of Sheffield
Andrew J. Vickers
Andrew J. Vickers Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer 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

Pursuing Medicine in the USA opens doors to a variety of online healthcare degrees and specialized career pathways. If you’re considering leadership roles, an online healthcare administration degree can prepare you for management roles in hospitals, clinics, and public health organizations.

For those aiming for advanced roles, the master's in healthcare administration online offers in-depth training in healthcare policy, finance, and operations. These degrees are ideal for professionals seeking to move into executive positions or oversee specialized facilities.

Nursing professionals can take the next step by enrolling in msn to dnp programs online, focusing on clinical leadership and evidence-based practice. Doctoral-level pharmacists also have flexible options; online pharmd programs enable working pharmacists to advance without pausing their careers.

These diverse online programs help students gain critical skills, improve career prospects, and adapt to the evolving healthcare landscape—while enjoying the convenience and affordability of remote learning.

Best Scientists Citing Mark Sculpher

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles