World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Patrick M.M. Bossuyt

Patrick M.M. Bossuyt

Award Badge
Best Scientists
2025
Award Badge
Medicine
Netherlands
2023

D-Index & Metrics

Best Scientists

D-Index
173
Citations
231215
World Ranking
753
National Ranking
18

Medicine

D-Index
177
Citations
296479
World Ranking
392
National Ranking
12

Patrick M.M. Bossuyt 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 Patrick M.M. Bossuyt 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: 1,124 publications — 96th percentile

96% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Patrick M.M. Bossuyt 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 Patrick M.M. Bossuyt 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: 177 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.

Research.com Recognitions

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

Overview

Patrick M.M. Bossuyt is affiliated with the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands and conducts research primarily in the field of Medicine. Their work spans several subfields, including Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty; Epidemiology; Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine; Oncology; and Hepatology.

The scientist's research topics include:

  • Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Liver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
  • Gastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
  • Delphi Technique in Research
  • Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection

Frequent co-authors collaborating with Patrick M.M. Bossuyt are:

  • Evelien Dekker
  • Quentin M. Anstee
  • Yasaman Vali
  • David Moher
  • Jenny Lee

These collaborations are reflected through publications in several notable venues where the scientist has contributed regularly. The most frequent publication venues include:

  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
  • Journal of Hepatology
  • BMJ
  • Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
  • Endoscopy

Among the recent research works associated with this scientist are several papers published in 2021 focusing on updated guidelines for reporting systematic reviews, reflecting involvement in the development and explanation of the PRISMA 2020 statement. Selected recent papers include:

  • The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews, 2021, BMJ
  • The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews, 2021, Systematic Reviews
  • The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews, 2021, International Journal of Surgery
  • PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews, 2021, BMJ
  • The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews, 2021, PLoS Medicine

Patrick M.M. Bossuyt's work plays a role in advancing the methods and standards for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, particularly in the context of medicine and epidemiology.

Best Publications

  • The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

    Matthew J Page;Joanne E McKenzie;Patrick M Bossuyt;Isabelle Boutron

  • Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative

    P M Bossuyt;J B Reitsma;D E Bruns;C A Gatsonis

  • QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

    Penny F. Whiting;Anne W.S. Rutjes;Marie E. Westwood;Susan Mallett

  • PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews.

    Matthew J Page;David Moher;Patrick M Bossuyt;Isabelle Boutron

  • STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies

    Patrick M Bossuyt;Johannes B Reitsma;David E Bruns;Constantine A Gatsonis

  • Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative

    Patrick M Bossuyt;Johannes B Reitsma;David E Bruns;Constantine A Gatsonis

  • The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and Elaboration

    Patrick M. Bossuyt;Johannes B. Reitsma;David E. Bruns;Constantine A. Gatsonis

  • The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews

    Penny Whiting;Anne W S Rutjes;Johannes B Reitsma;Patrick M M Bossuyt

  • Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews.

    Johannes B. Reitsma;Afina S. Glas;Anne W.S. Rutjes;Rob J.P.M. Scholten

  • STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.

    Patrick M. Bossuyt;Johannes B. Reitsma;David E. Bruns;Constantine A. Gatsonis

  • The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance

    Afina S. Glas;Jeroen G. Lijmer;Martin H. Prins;Gouke J. Bonsel

  • Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies The PRISMA-DTA Statement

    Matthew D.F. McInnes;David Moher;Brett D. Thombs;Brett D. Thombs;Trevor A. McGrath

  • Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests

    Jeroen G. Lijmer;Ben Willem Mol;Siem Heisterkamp;Gouke J. Bonsel

  • STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration

    Jérémie F Cohen;Jérémie F Cohen;Daniël A Korevaar;Douglas G Altman;David E Bruns

  • Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations for Diagnostic Tests and Strategies

    Holger J. Schünemann;Andrew D. Oxman;Jan Brozek;Paul Glasziou

  • Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review.

    Jeroen C van Rijn;Johannes B Reitsma;Jaap Stoker;Patrick M Bossuyt

  • Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement

    Matthew J Page;Joanne E McKenzie;Patrick M Bossuyt;Isabelle Boutron

  • Treatment of Venous Thrombosis with Intravenous Unfractionated Heparin Administered in the Hospital as Compared with Subcutaneous Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Administered at Home

    M M Koopman;P Prandoni;F Piovella;P A Ockelford

  • The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: Explanation and elaboration

    Patrick M. Bossuyt;J. B. Reitsma;D. E. Bruns;Constantine A. Gatsonis

  • STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. Translation to Russian

    Jérémie F. Cohen;F Cohen Jérémie;Daniël A. Korevaar;A Korevaar Daniël

Frequent Co-Authors

Ben Willem J. Mol
Ben Willem J. Mol Monash University
Johannes B. Reitsma
Johannes B. Reitsma Utrecht University
Jaap Stoker
Jaap Stoker University of Amsterdam
Paul Fockens
Paul Fockens University of Amsterdam
Paul Glasziou
Paul Glasziou Bond University
Constantine Gatsonis
Constantine Gatsonis Brown University
Ernst J. Kuipers
Ernst J. Kuipers Nanyang Technological University
Les Irwig
Les Irwig University of Sydney
David Moher
David Moher Ottawa Hospital
Harry R. Büller
Harry R. Büller University of 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

Considering a future in healthcare? Beyond traditional medical degrees, there are several flexible online options available for those interested in healthcare leadership, advanced practice, or pharmacy careers. These alternative pathways can open doors to a variety of roles in the healthcare industry, often with lower tuition rates or faster completion times than conventional programs.

If you're interested in the administrative side of healthcare, look into the cheapest online healthcare administration degree programs, which offer a solid foundation in management and health systems. For graduate-level advancement, affordable online mha programs are ideal for those aiming to move into higher-level leadership positions within hospitals or clinic networks.

For nurses seeking advanced roles, pursuing one of the cheap dnp online programs can provide greater clinical expertise and open doors to teaching or executive positions. Meanwhile, those focusing on medication and patient counseling can explore accredited online pharmacy schools to become licensed pharmacists.

These related online degrees provide flexible learning environments and cater to a range of career aspirations within healthcare, making them excellent options for those seeking to broaden their impact in the medical field.

Best Scientists Citing Patrick M.M. Bossuyt

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles