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 87 13430 12638 440 429 441 39036

Nadine E. Foster publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Nadine E. Foster between 1995 and 2026, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Nadine E. Foster published across 32 years, from 1995 to 2026, averaging 17.4 papers a year. Output peaked at 51 publications in 2016. 34 of the 557 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
10 20 30 40 50
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1995 to 2026. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 51. Peak 51 publications in 2016. 1995: 1 publication 1996: 4 publications 1997: 0 publications 1998: 2 publications 1999: 5 publications 2000: 3 publications 2001: 5 publications 2002: 5 publications 2003: 11 publications 2004: 2 publications 2005: 11 publications 2006: 12 publications 2007: 14 publications 2008: 15 publications 2009: 9 publications 2010: 23 publications 2011: 12 publications 2012: 17 publications 2013: 32 publications 2014: 17 publications 2015: 35 publications 2016: 51 publications 2017: 24 publications 2018: 30 publications 2019: 21 publications 2020: 35 publications 2021: 34 publications 2022: 23 publications 2023: 24 publications 2024: 46 publications 2025: 33 publications 2026: 1 publication
1995 2026

557 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Nadine E. Foster: publications per year, 1995 to 2026
Year Publications
1995 1
1996 4
1997 0
1998 2
1999 5
2000 3
2001 5
2002 5
2003 11
2004 2
2005 11
2006 12
2007 14
2008 15
2009 9
2010 23
2011 12
2012 17
2013 32
2014 17
2015 35
2016 51
2017 24
2018 30
2019 21
2020 35
2021 34
2022 23
2023 24
2024 46
2025 33
2026 1
Total 557
Download as CSV

Nadine E. Foster 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 Nadine E. Foster 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, 441–460 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: 441 publications — 47th percentile

47% 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
441–460 771 441
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
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

Nadine E. Foster 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 Nadine E. Foster 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, 86–87 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: 87 D-Index — 34th percentile

34% 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 87
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
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

Nadine E. Foster is affiliated with the University of Queensland in Australia. Their research primarily falls within the field of Medicine, with notable contributions to subfields such as Pharmacology, Surgery, General Health Professions, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, and Economics and Econometrics.

Their research topics cover a range of areas with a focus on musculoskeletal health. Key topics include:

  • Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Shoulder Injury and Treatment
  • Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
  • Osteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
  • Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Hip disorders and treatments

Their frequent co-authors include Jonathan Hill, Benjamin Saunders, Martyn Lewis, Melanie Holden, and Sue Jowett. The collaborations with these researchers reflect ongoing partnerships across multiple studies.

Publication venues where Nadine E. Foster has contributed frequently include:

  • Physiotherapy
  • BMJ Open
  • Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
  • BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
  • Musculoskeletal Science and Practice

Notable recent papers by Nadine E. Foster are:

  • A minimal common outcome measure set for COVID-19 clinical research, 2020, The Lancet Infectious Diseases
  • How does hip osteoarthritis differ from knee osteoarthritis?, 2021, Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
  • Moderators of the effect of therapeutic exercise for knee and hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis, 2023, The Lancet Rheumatology
  • Stratified primary care versus non-stratified care for musculoskeletal pain: findings from the STarT MSK feasibility and pilot cluster randomized controlled trial, 2020, BMC Family Practice
  • Refinement and validation of a tool for stratifying patients with musculoskeletal pain, 2021, European Journal of Pain

Best Publications

  • What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention

    Jan Hartvigsen;Mark J Hancock;Alice Kongsted;Quinette Louw

  • Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions.

    Nadine E Foster;Johannes R Anema;Dan Cherkin;Roger Chou

  • A minimal common outcome measure set for COVID-19 clinical research

    John C. Marshall;Srinivas Murthy;Janet Diaz;Neil Adhikari

  • Comparison of stratified primary care management for low back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): a randomised controlled trial

    Jonathan C Hill;David G T Whitehurst;David G T Whitehurst;David G T Whitehurst;Martyn Lewis;Stirling Bryan;Stirling Bryan

  • Low back pain: a call for action

    Rachelle Buchbinder;Maurits van Tulder;Birgitta Öberg;Lucíola Menezes Costa

  • Acupuncture for Chronic Pain: Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis

    Andrew J. Vickers;Angel M. Cronin;Alexandra C. Maschino;George Lewith

  • A primary care back pain screening tool: identifying patient subgroups for initial treatment.

    Jonathan C. Hill;Kate M. Dunn;Martyn Lewis;Ricky Mullis

  • A consensus approach toward the standardization of back pain definitions for use in prevalence studies

    Clermont E. Dionne;Kate M. Dunn;Peter R. Croft;Alf L. Nachemson

  • Interrater reliability of algometry in measuring pressure pain thresholds in healthy humans, using multiple raters

    Linda S. Chesterton;Julius Sim;Christine C. Wright;Nadine E. Foster

  • Acupuncture for chronic pain: update of an individual patient data meta-analysis

    Andrew J Vickers;Emily A Vertosick;George Lewith;Hugh MacPherson

  • Interventions to improve adherence to exercise for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults

    Joanne L Jordan;Melanie A Holden;Elizabeth Ej Mason;Nadine E Foster

  • Gender differences in pressure pain threshold in healthy humans

    Linda S Chesterton;Panos Barlas;Nadine E Foster;G.David Baxter

  • Hip arthroscopy versus best conservative care for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (UK FASHIoN): a multicentre randomised controlled trial

    Damian R Griffin;Damian R Griffin;Edward J Dickenson;Edward J Dickenson;Peter D H Wall;Peter D H Wall;Felix Achana

  • Exercise for lower limb osteoarthritis: systematic review incorporating trial sequential analysis and network meta-analysis

    Olalekan A Uthman;Olalekan A Uthman;Danielle A van der Windt;Joanne L Jordan;Krysia S Dziedzic

  • Distinctiveness of psychological obstacles to recovery in low back pain patients in primary care

    Nadine E. Foster;Elaine Thomas;Annette Bishop;Kate M. Dunn

  • Acupuncture treatment for chronic knee pain: a systematic review

    A. White;N. E. Foster;M. Cummings;P. Barlas

  • Randomized controlled trial of specific spinal stabilization exercises and conventional physiotherapy for recurrent low back pain.

    Mindy C Cairns;Nadine E Foster;Chris Wright

  • Management of nonspecific low back pain by physiotherapists in Britain and Ireland. A descriptive questionnaire of current clinical practice.

    N E Foster;K A Thompson;G D Baxter;J M Allen

  • Effective treatment options for musculoskeletal pain in primary care: A systematic overview of current evidence.

    Opeyemi O. Babatunde;Joanne L. Jordan;Danielle A. Van der Windt;Jonathan C. Hill

  • Illness perceptions of low back pain patients in primary care: what are they, do they change and are they associated with outcome?

    Nadine E. Foster;Annette Bishop;Elaine Thomas;Chris Main

Frequent Co-Authors

Elaine M. Hay
Elaine M. Hay Keele University
Tamar Pincus
Tamar Pincus Royal Holloway University of London
Elaine Thomas
Elaine Thomas Keele University
Chris J. Main
Chris J. Main Keele University
Jenny L Donovan
Jenny L Donovan University of Bristol
Stavros Petrou
Stavros Petrou University of Oxford
Peter Croft
Peter Croft Keele University
Rachelle Buchbinder
Rachelle Buchbinder Monash University
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

Exploring medicine in the USA opens doors to numerous healthcare careers and flexible educational routes. Not all future healthcare professionals pursue a traditional medical degree; many choose alternative, equally rewarding paths.

For those interested in nursing, some nursing schools that don't require teas or hesi provide accessible entry points for students who may not want to take these admission exams. This can expedite your journey into the profession.

If you're passionate about healthcare leadership and policy, an accelerated healthcare administration degree online offers flexible, fast-tracked programs for working students or career-changers aiming for administrative roles.

Nurses eager to elevate their credentials may consider asn to np bridge programs, designed to help practicing RNs advance to nurse practitioner roles more efficiently.

Finally, a nutrition bachelor degree online can open up various careers in public health, clinical nutrition, and wellness. These online degree options make it easier to tailor your pathway to fit your goals and schedule.

Best Scientists Citing Nadine E. Foster

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles