World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo

Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Medicine 80 16918 15909 636 614 311 32941

Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo between 1999 and 2026, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo published across 28 years, from 1999 to 2026, averaging 14.6 papers a year. Output peaked at 34 publications in 2024. 16 of the 410 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
10 20 30
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1999 to 2026. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 34. Peak 34 publications in 2024. 1999: 1 publication 2000: 5 publications 2001: 2 publications 2002: 4 publications 2003: 6 publications 2004: 6 publications 2005: 8 publications 2006: 12 publications 2007: 9 publications 2008: 8 publications 2009: 9 publications 2010: 19 publications 2011: 11 publications 2012: 18 publications 2013: 13 publications 2014: 16 publications 2015: 23 publications 2016: 29 publications 2017: 22 publications 2018: 18 publications 2019: 18 publications 2020: 20 publications 2021: 28 publications 2022: 23 publications 2023: 32 publications 2024: 34 publications 2025: 15 publications 2026: 1 publication
1999 2026

410 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo: publications per year, 1999 to 2026
Year Publications
1999 1
2000 5
2001 2
2002 4
2003 6
2004 6
2005 8
2006 12
2007 9
2008 8
2009 9
2010 19
2011 11
2012 18
2013 13
2014 16
2015 23
2016 29
2017 22
2018 18
2019 18
2020 20
2021 28
2022 23
2023 32
2024 34
2025 15
2026 1
Total 410
Download as CSV

Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo 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 Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo 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, 301–320 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: 311 publications — 19th percentile

19% 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
301–320 834 311
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
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

Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo 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 Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo 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, 80–81 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: 80 D-Index — 16th percentile

16% 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 80
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
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

Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo is affiliated with Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in the Netherlands. Their academic work is primarily situated within the field of Medicine, with a focus on various subfields including Pharmacology, Surgery, Economics and Econometrics, Pathology and Forensic Medicine, and General Health Professions.

Ostelo's research covers a range of topics, prominently in musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation, spine and intervertebral disc pathology, and health systems including economic evaluations and quality of life assessments. Other key areas of work include meta-analysis and systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines implementation, fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome research, and osteoarthritis treatment and mechanisms.

Selected recent publications illustrate the scientist's focus on pain management, physiotherapy, and trial methodology, including:

  • "Nociceptive, neuropathic, or nociplastic low back pain? The low back pain phenotyping (BACPAP) consortium's international and multidisciplinary consensus recommendations" (2024, The Lancet Rheumatology)
  • "The effect of spinal manipulative therapy on pain relief and function in patients with chronic low back pain: an individual participant data meta-analysis" (2021, Physiotherapy)
  • "The statistical approach in trial-based economic evaluations matters: get your statistics together!" (2021, BMC Health Services Research)
  • "Physiotherapy management of sciatica" (2020, Journal of physiotherapy)
  • "Adherence to the PRISMA statement and its association with risk of bias in systematic reviews published in rehabilitation journals: A meta-research study" (2022, Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy)

Frequent coauthors who have collaborated extensively with Ostelo include:

  • Johanna M. van Dongen
  • Alessandro Chiarotto
  • Tiziano Innocenti
  • Maurits W. van Tulder
  • J. Knoop

Ostelo has published repeatedly in prominent venues related to musculoskeletal and rehabilitation sciences. These venues include:

  • BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
  • Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
  • Journal of physiotherapy
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Best Publications

  • Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change.

    Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo;Rick A. Deyo;P Stratford;Gordon Waddell

  • Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist

    Caroline B. Terwee;Lidwine B. Mokkink;Dirk L. Knol;Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo

  • Behavioural treatment for chronic low-back pain

    Nicholas Henschke;Raymond W.J.G. Ostelo;Maurits W. van Tulder;Johan W.S. Vlaeyen

  • Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

    Steven J Kamper;Steven J Kamper;A T Apeldoorn;A Chiarotto;R J E M Smeets

  • A systematic review on the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain

    Marienke van Middelkoop;Sidney M Rubinstein;Ton Kuijpers;Arianne P Verhagen

  • Clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care: an international comparison.

    Bart W. Koes;Maurits W. Van Tulder;Raymond Ostelo;A. Kim Burton

  • Clinically important outcomes in low back pain.

    Raymond W.J.G. Ostelo;Henrica C.W. de Vet

  • Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change

    Henrica C de Vet;Caroline B Terwee;Raymond W Ostelo;Heleen Beckerman

  • Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain

    S.J. Kamper;A.T. Apeldoorn;A. Chiarotto;R.J.E.M. Smeets

  • Exercise therapy for chronic nonspecific low-back pain

    Marienke van Middelkoop;Sidney M. Rubinstein;Arianne P. Verhagen;Raymond W. Ostelo;Raymond W. Ostelo

  • Behavioral Treatment for Chronic Low Back Pain : A Systematic Review Within the Framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group

    Maurits W. Van Tulder;Raymond Ostelo;T. Johan W. S. Vlaeyen;Steven J. Linton

  • Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status

    Steven J. Kamper;Raymond W.J.G. Ostelo;Dirk L. Knol;Christopher G. Maher

  • Motor control exercise for chronic non-specific low-back pain.

    Bruno T. Saragiotto;Christopher G. Maher;Tiê P. Yamato;Leonardo O.P. Costa

  • Measurement Properties of Visual Analogue Scale, Numeric Rating Scale, and Pain Severity Subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.

    Alessandro Chiarotto;Lara J Maxwell;Raymond W Ostelo;Maarten Boers

  • Minimal clinically important change of the Neck Disability Index and the Numerical Rating Scale for patients with neck pain.

    Jan J. M. Pool;Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo;Jan L. Hoving;Jan L. Hoving;Lex M. Bouter

  • Surgery versus conservative management of sciatica due to a lumbar herniated disc: a systematic review

    Wilco C H Jacobs;Maurits van Tulder;Maurits van Tulder;Mark P. Arts;Sidney M Rubinstein

  • Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach

    Henrica C. W. de Vet;Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo;Caroline B. Terwee;Nicole van der Roer

  • Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with nonspecific low back pain.

    Nicole van der Roer;Raymond W J G Ostelo;Geertruida E Bekkering;Maurits W van Tulder

  • Long-term effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a systematic review

    Martijn F. Pisters;Cindy Veenhof;Nico L. U. van Meeteren;Raymond W. Ostelo

  • The Back Pain Beliefs of Health Care Providers: Are We Fear-Avoidant?

    Steven J. Linton;Johan Vlaeyen;Raymond Ostelo

Frequent Co-Authors

Maurits W. van Tulder
Maurits W. van Tulder Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Henrica C.W. de Vet
Henrica C.W. de Vet University of Amsterdam
Bart W. Koes
Bart W. Koes Erasmus University Rotterdam
Arianne P. Verhagen
Arianne P. Verhagen University of Technology Sydney
Christopher G. Maher
Christopher G. Maher University of Sydney
Dirk L. Knol
Dirk L. Knol VU University Medical Center
Judith E. Bosmans
Judith E. Bosmans Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Caroline B. Terwee
Caroline B. Terwee VU University Medical Center
Lex M. Bouter
Lex M. Bouter 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

Interested in healthcare but not sure if a traditional medical degree is right for you? There are various online degrees and flexible career pathways in the medical field to consider.

For those looking to enter nursing, some adn nursing programs offer a straightforward and accessible entry point. Additionally, some nursing school without teas test eliminates standardized test barriers, making the process less daunting for aspiring nurses.

If you're interested in a non-clinical role, there are reputable online medical coding classes with financial aid. These programs can help you build a career in healthcare administration, billing, or coding without medical school.

For a broader role in the healthcare industry, an online degree in healthcare administration can open doors to leadership positions in hospitals, clinics, or insurance companies. These options provide alternative ways to make a difference in medicine while meeting diverse career goals.

Best Scientists Citing Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles