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

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Best Scientists 185 493 455 5 5 978 360701
Medicine 178 381 345 4 4 881 367626

Matthias Egger publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Matthias Egger between 1969 and 2026, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Matthias Egger published across 58 years, from 1969 to 2026, averaging 17.6 papers a year. Output peaked at 75 publications in 2017. 17 of the 1,023 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
25 50 75
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1969 to 2026. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 75. Peak 75 publications in 2017. 1969: 1 publication 1970: 0 publications 1971: 0 publications 1972: 0 publications 1973: 0 publications 1974: 0 publications 1975: 0 publications 1976: 0 publications 1977: 0 publications 1978: 0 publications 1979: 0 publications 1980: 0 publications 1981: 0 publications 1982: 0 publications 1983: 0 publications 1984: 0 publications 1985: 0 publications 1986: 0 publications 1987: 0 publications 1988: 0 publications 1989: 1 publication 1990: 1 publication 1991: 7 publications 1992: 4 publications 1993: 5 publications 1994: 8 publications 1995: 6 publications 1996: 8 publications 1997: 9 publications 1998: 10 publications 1999: 16 publications 2000: 15 publications 2001: 21 publications 2002: 21 publications 2003: 16 publications 2004: 25 publications 2005: 31 publications 2006: 23 publications 2007: 42 publications 2008: 53 publications 2009: 36 publications 2010: 34 publications 2011: 34 publications 2012: 53 publications 2013: 50 publications 2014: 47 publications 2015: 61 publications 2016: 70 publications 2017: 75 publications 2018: 53 publications 2019: 48 publications 2020: 45 publications 2021: 49 publications 2022: 9 publications 2023: 7 publications 2024: 12 publications 2025: 16 publications 2026: 1 publication
1969 2026

1,023 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Matthias Egger: publications per year, 1969 to 2026
Year Publications
1969 1
1970 0
1971 0
1972 0
1973 0
1974 0
1975 0
1976 0
1977 0
1978 0
1979 0
1980 0
1981 0
1982 0
1983 0
1984 0
1985 0
1986 0
1987 0
1988 0
1989 1
1990 1
1991 7
1992 4
1993 5
1994 8
1995 6
1996 8
1997 9
1998 10
1999 16
2000 15
2001 21
2002 21
2003 16
2004 25
2005 31
2006 23
2007 42
2008 53
2009 36
2010 34
2011 34
2012 53
2013 50
2014 47
2015 61
2016 70
2017 75
2018 53
2019 48
2020 45
2021 49
2022 9
2023 7
2024 12
2025 16
2026 1
Total 1,023
Download as CSV

Matthias Egger 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 Matthias Egger 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, 881–900 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: 881 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
881–900 139 881
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

Matthias Egger 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 Matthias Egger 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, 178–179 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: 178 D-Index — 98th percentile

98% 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
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 19 178
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

  • 2026 - Research.com Medicine in Switzerland Leader Award
  • 2025 - Research.com Best Scientists Award
  • 2025 - Research.com Medicine in Switzerland Leader Award
  • 2023 - Research.com Medicine in Switzerland Leader Award
  • 2022 - Research.com Medicine in Switzerland Leader Award

Overview

Matthias Egger is affiliated with the University of Bern in Switzerland and has contributed extensively to the field of Environmental Science. Their research primarily focuses on microplastics and plastic pollution, recycling and waste management techniques, as well as related topics within environmental chemistry and global and planetary change.

The scientist has authored numerous publications, with a primary focus on the pollution subfield. Their work encompasses the investigation of marine debris transport, plastic fallout, and the role of sediment oxygen consumption in the marine carbon cycle. Together, these areas reflect an interdisciplinary approach to understanding environmental contamination and its broader impacts.

Recent notable publications include:

  • The physical oceanography of the transport of floating marine debris, 2020, Environmental Research Letters
  • First evidence of plastic fallout from the North Pacific Garbage Patch, 2020, Scientific Reports
  • Sediment oxygen consumption: Role in the global marine carbon cycle, 2022, Earth-Science Reviews
  • Widespread energy limitation to life in global subseafloor sediments, 2020, Science Advances
  • Industrialised fishing nations largely contribute to floating plastic pollution in the North Pacific subtropical gyre, 2022, Scientific Reports

The frequent co-authors collaborating with Matthias Egger include Laurent Lebreton, Helge Niemann, Bo Barker Jørgensen, Sarah-Jeanne Royer, and Karin Kvale. These collaborations indicate an engagement with a network of researchers active in environmental science and marine pollution.

Publication venues where Matthias Egger's research commonly appears are:

  • Scientific Reports
  • Environmental Research Letters
  • Marine Pollution Bulletin
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
  • Earth-Science Reviews

The scientist's main areas of study include Environmental Science, with significant contributions to subfields such as Pollution, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Global and Planetary Change, Environmental Chemistry, and Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis. Their research topics specifically cover:

  • Microplastics and Plastic Pollution
  • Recycling and Waste Management Techniques
  • Methane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
  • Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
  • Effects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicals
  • Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
  • Biodegradable polymer synthesis and properties

The combination of these topics and fields situates Matthias Egger's contributions at the intersection of environmental pollution issues and their broader chemical, geological, and technological contexts.

Best Publications

  • Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

    Matthias Egger;George Davey Smith;Martin Schneider;Christoph Minder

  • The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

    E von Elm;D G Altman;M Egger;M Egger;S J Pocock

  • [The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies].

    Erik von Elm;Douglas G. Altman;Matthias Egger;Matthias Egger;Stuart J. Pocock

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

    D Moher;A Liberati;J Tetzlaff;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

  • Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

    Erik von Elm;Douglas G Altman;Matthias Egger;Stuart J Pocock

  • Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration.

    J P Vandenbroucke;E von Elm;E von Elm;D G Altman;P C Gøtzsche

  • Body-mass index and incidence of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies

    Andrew G Renehan;Margaret Tyson;Matthias Egger;Matthias Egger;Richard F Heller

  • Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

    Andrea Cipriani;Andrea Cipriani;Toshi A Furukawa;Georgia Salanti;Anna Chaimani;Anna Chaimani;Anna Chaimani

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

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

  • Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis.

    Jonathan A.C Sterne;Matthias Egger

  • The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies

    E Von Elm;D G Altman;M Egger;S J Pocock

  • Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials

    Peter Jüni;Douglas G Altman;Matthias Egger

  • Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context

    Matthias Egger;George Davey Smith;Douglas G Altman

  • 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

  • Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration

    Jan P Vandenbroucke;Erik Björn von Elm;Douglas G Altman;Peter C Gøtzsche

  • Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures

    Matthias Egger;George Davey Smith;Andrew N Phillips

  • The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis.

    Peter Jüni;Anne Witschi;Ralph Bloch;Matthias Egger

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

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

  • The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies */Declaration De l'Initiative STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) : Recommandations Pour L'elaboration Des Rapports D'etudes Observationnelles/ Declaracion De la Iniciativa STOBE

    Erik von Elm;Douglas G. Altman;Matthias Egger;Stuart J. Pocock

Frequent Co-Authors

Marcel Zwahlen
Marcel Zwahlen University of Bern
Jonathan A C Sterne
Jonathan A C Sterne University of Bristol
George Davey Smith
George Davey Smith University of Bristol
François Dabis
François Dabis University of Bordeaux
Peter Jüni
Peter Jüni University of Oxford
Robin Wood
Robin Wood University of Cape Town
Margaret T May
Margaret T May University of Bristol
Hansjakob Furrer
Hansjakob Furrer University of Bern
Douglas G. Altman
Douglas G. Altman University of Oxford
Nicola Low
Nicola Low University of Bern

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

For those interested in the medical field but not ready to commit to a full medical degree, there are several online options that offer flexibility and growth opportunities.

If administrative work appeals to you, medical billing and coding online schools that accept financial aid provide accessible entry points into the healthcare sector. These programs often take less time and offer strong job security.

Nursing is another popular path. Some students prefer programs with fewer entrance requirements. You can explore nursing schools that don't require teas test, making it simpler to get started.

Interested in leadership roles? Accelerated online degrees offer a fast track into management, such as an healthcare administration accelerated degree. These programs can help open doors to high-level positions quickly.

For current nurses looking to advance, an rn to np bridge program allows registered nurses to pursue advanced practice roles like nurse practitioner in less time.

Each pathway offers unique advantages, helping you start or advance your career in healthcare on your own terms.

Best Scientists Citing Matthias Egger

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles