World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
120
Citations
84027
World Ranking
3663
National Ranking
363

Peter Sandercock 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 Sandercock 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: 557 publications — 66th percentile

66% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Peter Sandercock 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 Sandercock 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: 120 D-Index — 82nd percentile

82% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Peter Sandercock is affiliated with the University of Edinburgh in the United Kingdom and focuses their research efforts primarily within the field of Medicine, with a notable sub-specialization in Neurology, Epidemiology, Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, and Nephrology.

Their research topics cover a range of neurological and cardiovascular conditions, emphasizing Acute Ischemic Stroke Management, Cerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases, Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances, Intracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research, Antiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases, Neurological Disorders and Treatments, as well as COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies.

Peter Sandercock has authored multiple papers, with several recent notable publications including:

  • Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2): a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy, 2021, The Lancet
  • Design, recruitment, and baseline characteristics of the EMPA-KIDNEY trial, 2022, Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation
  • Colchicine for prevention of vascular inflammation in Non-CardioEmbolic stroke (CONVINCE) - study protocol for a randomised controlled trial, 2021, European Stroke Journal
  • Long-term Effectiveness of Adjuvant Treatment With Catechol-O-Methyltransferase or Monoamine Oxidase B Inhibitors Compared With Dopamine Agonists Among Patients With Parkinson Disease Uncontrolled by Levodopa Therapy, 2021, JAMA Neurology
  • Understanding the neuroprotective effect of tranexamic acid: an exploratory analysis of the CRASH-3 randomised trial, 2020, Critical Care

Their frequent co-authors include Emily Sammons, Colin Baigent, Jonathan Emberson, Louise Bowman, and Jane Armitage.

Peter Sandercock's research has been published predominantly in journals such as the International Journal of Stroke, European Stroke Journal, JAMA Neurology, Stroke, and Ophthalmology.

Best Publications

  • COLLABORATIVE OVERVIEW OF RANDOMIZED TRIALS OF ANTIPLATELET THERAPY .1. PREVENTION OF DEATH, MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION, AND STROKE BY PROLONGED ANTIPLATELET THERAPY IN VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF PATIENTS

    R Altman;L Carreras;R Diaz;E Figueroa

  • Classification and natural history of clinically identifiable subtypes of cerebral infarction

    J Bamford;P Sandercock;M Dennis;J Burn

  • Randomised trial of a perindopril-based blood-pressure-lowering regimen among 6105 individuals with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack

    S. MacMahon;B. Neal;C. Tzourio;A. Rodgers

  • Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health

    Michelle Campbell;Ray Fitzpatrick;Andrew Haines;Ann Louise Kinmonth

  • International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomized trial.

    Andrew Molyneux;Richard Kerr;Irene Stratton

  • International subarachnoid aneurysm trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomised comparison of effects on survival, dependency, seizures, rebleeding, subgroups, and aneurysm occlusion

    Andrew J Molyneux;Richard S C Kerr;Ly-Mee Yu;Mike Clarke

  • Effect of treatment delay, age, and stroke severity on the effects of intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase for acute ischaemic stroke: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials

    Jonathan Emberson;Kennedy R Lees;Patrick Lyden;Lisa Blackwell

  • Interpretation of the evidence for the efficacy and safety of statin therapy.

    Rory Collins;Christina Reith;Jonathan Emberson;Jane Armitage

  • The International Stroke Trial (IST): A randomised trial of aspirin, subcutaneous heparin, both, or neither among 19 435 patients with acute ischaemic stroke

    P Sandercock;R Collins;C Counsell;B Farrell

  • The benefits and harms of intravenous thrombolysis with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator within 6 h of acute ischaemic stroke (the third international stroke trial [IST-3]): a randomised controlled trial

    Peter Sandercock;Joanna M Wardlaw;Richard I Lindley

  • Effect of intravenous corticosteroids on death within 14 days in 10008 adults with clinically significant head injury (MRC CRASH trial): randomised placebo-controlled trial.

    Ian Roberts;David Yates;Peter Sandercock;Barbara Farrell

  • Recombinant tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischaemic stroke: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

    Joanna M. Wardlaw;Veronica Murray;Eivind Berge;Gregory J. del Zoppo

  • Stroke in China: advances and challenges in epidemiology, prevention, and management

    S Wu;B Wu;M Liu;Z Chen

  • A prospective study of acute cerebrovascular disease in the community: the Oxfordshire Community Stroke Project--1981-86. 2. Incidence, case fatality rates and overall outcome at one year of cerebral infarction, primary intracerebral and subarachnoid haemorrhage.

    J Bamford;P Sandercock;M Dennis;J Burn

  • Blood Pressure and Clinical Outcomes in the International Stroke Trial

    Jo Leonardi-Bee;Philip M.W. Bath;Stephen J. Phillips;Peter A.G. Sandercock

  • Final results of MRC CRASH, a randomised placebo-controlled trial of intravenous corticosteroid in adults with head injury-outcomes at 6 months.

    Phil Edwards;Miguel Arango;Laura Balica;Rowland Cottingham

  • Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients.

    J M Bamford;P A Sandercock;C P Warlow;J Slattery

  • Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review

    Pablo Perel;Ian Roberts;Emily Sena;Philipa Wheble

  • Is Breakdown of the Blood-Brain Barrier Responsible for Lacunar Stroke, Leukoaraiosis, and Dementia?

    Joanna Wardlaw;Peter Sandercock;Martin Dennis;John Starr

  • Long-term survival after first-ever stroke: the Oxfordshire Community Stroke Project.

    M. S. Dennis;J. P. S. Burn;P. A. G. Sandercock;J. M. Bamford

Frequent Co-Authors

Joanna M. Wardlaw
Joanna M. Wardlaw University of Edinburgh
Martin Dennis
Martin Dennis University of Edinburgh
Charles Warlow
Charles Warlow University of Edinburgh
Graeme J. Hankey
Graeme J. Hankey University of Western Australia
Gordon D. Murray
Gordon D. Murray University of Edinburgh
Colin Baigent
Colin Baigent University of Oxford
Peter M. Rothwell
Peter M. Rothwell University of Oxford
Geoffrey A. Donnan
Geoffrey A. Donnan University of Melbourne
Ian Roberts
Ian Roberts London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

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 pathways related to Medicine in the USA can open rewarding career opportunities, even if a traditional medical degree isn’t your first choice. For students who already hold a bachelor’s degree in another field, direct entry online MSN programs offer a fast-track route into advanced nursing roles without starting from scratch.

If you’re concerned about admission requirements or competitiveness, there are options such as easy nursing programs to get into, which tend to have higher acceptance rates and more flexible prerequisites. For those who want to work in healthcare administration, enrolling in medical billing and coding schools online with financial aid can provide practical, in-demand skills without the need for clinical experience.

Additionally, students looking for streamlined pathways into nursing may benefit from absn programs that don't require teas, removing extra testing barriers. Each of these online degrees and career pathways provides flexible, accessible, and meaningful roles in the growing healthcare sector.

Best Scientists Citing Peter Sandercock

Trending Scientists