World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
96
Citations
43717
World Ranking
9524
National Ranking
929

Peter Fayers 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 Peter Fayers 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: 330 publications — 23rd percentile

23% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Peter Fayers 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 Peter Fayers 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: 96 D-Index — 53rd percentile

53% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Peter Fayers is affiliated with the University of Aberdeen in the United Kingdom. Their research primarily focuses on medicine, with particular attention to public health, environmental and occupational health, economics and econometrics, general health professions, oncology, and ophthalmology.

Their work covers a range of topics including health systems, economic evaluations, quality of life, palliative care and end-of-life issues, nasolacrimal duct obstruction treatments, ocular surface and contact lens, cancer survivorship and care, childhood cancer survivors' quality of life, and health disparities and outcomes.

Fayers has contributed to several recent publications, which include:

  • Overlap of Depressive Symptoms with Health-Related Quality-of-Life Measures (2020, PharmacoEconomics)
  • The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Eight Dimension (FACT-8D), a Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument Derived From the Cancer-Specific FACT-General (FACT-G) Quality of Life Questionnaire: Development and Australian Value Set (2021, Value in Health)
  • Differences in Patient-Reported Outcomes That Are Most Frequently Detected in Randomized Controlled Trials in Patients With Solid Tumors: A Pooled Analysis of 229 Trials (2020, Value in Health)
  • The watery eye quality of life (WEQOL) questionnaire: a patient-reported outcome measure for surgically amenable epiphora (2021, Eye)
  • United States Value Set for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Eight Dimensions (FACT-8D), a Cancer-Specific Preference-Based Quality of Life Instrument (2023, PharmacoEconomics - Open)

Frequent coauthors collaborating with Fayers include:

  • Madeleine King
  • Richard Norman
  • Rosalie Viney
  • A. Simon Pickard
  • David Cella

Their research has been published predominantly in the following venues:

  • Value in Health
  • Eye
  • PharmacoEconomics
  • PharmacoEconomics - Open
  • Targeted Oncology

Best Publications

  • EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual

    Peter Fayers;N. K. Aaronson;N. K. Aaronson;K. Bjordal;K. Bjordal;K. Bjordal;M. Groenvold

  • Studies Comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for Assessment of Pain Intensity in Adults: A Systematic Literature Review

    Marianne Jensen Hjermstad;Marianne Jensen Hjermstad;Peter M. Fayers;Peter M. Fayers;Dagny F. Haugen;Dagny F. Haugen;Augusto Caraceni

  • Patient survival after D-1 and D-2 resections for gastric cancer: long-term results of the MRC randomized surgical trial

    A Cuschieri;S Weeden;J Fielding;J Bancewicz

  • Postoperative morbidity and mortality after D1 and D2 resections for gastric cancer: preliminary results of the MRC randomised controlled surgical trial

    A Cuschieri;V Joypaul;P Fayers;P Cook

  • Quality of Life in Head and Neck Cancer Patients: Validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-H&N35

    Kristin Bjordal;Eva Hammerlid;Marianne Ahlner-Elmqvist;Alexander De Graeff

  • A 12 country field study of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 3.0) and the head and neck cancer specific module (EORTC QLQ-H&N35) in head and neck patients

    K Bjordal;A de Graeff;P M Fayers;E Hammerlid

  • ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research

    Bryce B. Reeve;Kathleen W. Wyrwich;Albert W. Wu;Galina Velikova

  • Quality of life research within the EORTC the EORTC QLQ-C30

    P Fayers;P Fayers;A Bottomley

  • The development of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL: A shortened questionnaire for cancer patients in palliative care

    Mogens Groenvold;Mogens Groenvold;Morten Aa. Petersen;Neil K. Aaronson;Juan I. Arraras

  • Evidence-Based Guidelines for Determination of Sample Size and Interpretation of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30

    Kim Cocks;Madeleine T. King;Galina Velikova;Galina Velikova;Marrissa Martyn St-James

  • Understanding self-rated health.

    Peter M Fayers;Mirjam A G Sprangers

  • The clinical significance of adaptation to changing health: a meta-analysis of response shift.

    Carolyn E. Schwartz;Rita Bode;Nicholas Repucci;Janine Becker

  • Health-related quality of life in the general Norwegian population assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire: the QLQ=C30 (+ 3).

    Marianne J. Hjermstad;Peter M. Fayers;Kristin Bjordal;Stein Kaasa

  • Interferon-alpha and survival in metastatic renal carcinoma: early results of a randomised controlled trial

    A Ritchie;G Griffiths;M Parmar;SD Fossa

  • Clinical and psychometric validation of an EORTC questionnaire module, the EORTC QLQ-OES18, to assess quality of life in patients with oesophageal cancer.

    J.M Blazeby;T Conroy;E Hammerlid;P Fayers

  • Evidence-based guidelines for interpreting change scores for the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30.

    K. Cocks;M.T. King;G. Velikova;G. de Castro

  • EORTC QLQ–C30 Reference Values Manual

    Neil William Scott;Peter Fayers;Neil K Aaronson;Andrew Bottomley

  • Using reference data on quality of life—the importance of adjusting for age and gender, exemplified by the EORTC QLQ-C30 (+3)

    M. J. Hjermstad;P. M. Fayers;Kristin Bjordal;S. Kaasa

  • Item Response Theory for Psychologists

    Peter Fayers

  • Quality o f L ife i n H ead a nd N eck C ancer P atients: Validation o f t he E uropean O rganization f or R esearch and T reatment o f C ancer Q uality o f L ife Questionnaire-H&N35

    Kristin Bjordal;Eva Hammerlid;Marianne Ahlner-Elmqvist;Alexander de Graeff

Frequent Co-Authors

Stein Kaasa
Stein Kaasa Oslo University Hospital
Neil K. Aaronson
Neil K. Aaronson Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital
Mirjam A. G. Sprangers
Mirjam A. G. Sprangers University of Amsterdam
Jane M Blazeby
Jane M Blazeby University of Bristol
Andrew Bottomley
Andrew Bottomley European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer
Madeleine King
Madeleine King University of Sydney
Ron D. Hays
Ron D. Hays University of California, Los Angeles
Irene J Higginson
Irene J Higginson King's College London
Morten Petersen
Morten Petersen University of Copenhagen
Andrea L. Pusic
Andrea L. Pusic Brigham and Women's Hospital

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 many doors to rewarding healthcare careers beyond becoming a doctor. If you’re considering flexible education options, a range of accredited online programs can help you fast-track your ambitions or specialize in key areas.

For those seeking to advance quickly, accelerated healthcare programs provide rigorous curriculums to jumpstart leadership roles in healthcare settings. Likewise, registered nurses looking to become nurse practitioners can benefit from adn to np bridge programs—designed for efficient career advancement while maintaining employment.

Nutrition also plays a critical role in patient care and wellness. The best online nutrition degree options enable students to study remotely and prepare for work in hospitals, clinics, or community health organizations.

If healthcare management interests you, consider cahme accredited online healthcare administration programs. These programs prepare graduates for leadership, compliance, and organizational strategy in hospitals and other healthcare facilities.

Best Scientists Citing Peter Fayers

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles