World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
104
Citations
48405
World Ranking
6964
National Ranking
3664

Richard E. Kuntz 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 Richard E. Kuntz 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: 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 publications 1,796+

This scientist: 316 publications — 20th percentile

20% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Richard E. Kuntz 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 Richard E. Kuntz 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: 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 D-Index 217+

This scientist: 104 D-Index — 66th percentile

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

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

Overview

Richard E. Kuntz is affiliated with Brigham and Women's Hospital in the United States. Their research contributions span several areas, with a focus on economics, econometrics, finance, and medicine.

Their recent research output includes publications in multiple academic venues. Notable papers are:

  • Attribution of Adverse Events Following Coronary Stent Placement Identified Using Administrative Claims Data, 2020, Journal of the American Heart Association
  • Health Product Manufacturers and Innovators COVID-19 Impact Assessment: Lessons Learned and Compelling Needs, 2022, NAM Perspectives
  • Early technology review: towards an expedited pathway, 2024, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

The frequent coauthors collaborating with Richard E. Kuntz include:

  • Sanket S. Dhruva
  • Craig S. Parzynski
  • Ginger Gamble
  • Jeptha P. Curtis
  • Nihar R. Desai

Their research has been published primarily in the following venues:

  • Journal of the American Heart Association
  • International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • NAM Perspectives

Richard E. Kuntz's work covers a range of main fields of study, chiefly:

  • Economics, Econometrics and Finance
  • Medicine

Their subfields of study include:

  • Economics and Econometrics
  • Surgery
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty

The main topics addressed in Richard E. Kuntz's body of work are:

  • Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
  • Healthcare Policy and Management
  • Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Delphi Technique in Research
  • Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Healthcare cost, quality, practices

Best Publications

  • Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery.

    Jeffrey W. Moses;Martin B. Leon;Jeffrey J. Popma;Peter J. Fitzgerald

  • Protected Carotid-Artery Stenting versus Endarterectomy in High-Risk Patients

    Jay S. Yadav;Mark H. Wholey;Richard E. Kuntz;Pierre B Fayad

  • A Clinical Trial Comparing Three Antithrombotic-Drug Regimens After Coronary Artery Stenting

    Martin B. Leon;Donald S. Baim;Jeffrey J. Popma;Paul C. Gordon

  • Stent Thrombosis in the Modern Era A Pooled Analysis of Multicenter Coronary Stent Clinical Trials

    Donald E. Cutlip;Donald S. Baim;Kalon K. L. Ho;Jeffrey J. Popma

  • Immediate and Late Clinical Outcomes of Carotid Artery Stenting in Patients With Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis A 5-Year Prospective Analysis

    Gary S. Roubin;Gishel New;Sriram S. Iyer;Jiri J. Vitek

  • Randomized Trial of a Distal Embolic Protection Device During Percutaneous Intervention of Saphenous Vein Aorto-Coronary Bypass Grafts

    Donald S. Baim;Dennis Wahr;Barry George;Martin B. Leon

  • ACC/AHA Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (Revision of the 1993 PTCA Guidelines)—Executive Summary

    Jr Smith;J. T. Dove;A. K. Jacobs;J. W. Kennedy

  • Localized intracoronary gamma-radiation therapy to inhibit the recurrence of restenosis after stenting

    Martin B. Leon;Paul S. Teirstein;Jeffrey W. Moses;Prabhakar Tripuraneni

  • ACC/AHA Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (Revision of the 1993 PTCA Guidelines)—Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the 1993 Guidelines for Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty) Endorsed by the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions

    Sidney C. Smith;James T. Dove;Alice K. Jacobs;J. Ward Kennedy

  • Analysis of 1-year clinical outcomes in the SIRIUS trial: a randomized trial of a sirolimus-eluting stent versus a standard stent in patients at high risk for coronary restenosis.

    David R. Holmes;Martin B. Leon;Jeffrey W. Moses;Jeffrey J. Popma

  • The Canadian study of the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with long de novo lesions in small native coronary arteries (C-SIRIUS)

    Erick Schampaert;Eric A. Cohen;Michael Schlüter;François Reeves

  • Incidence and treatment of 'no-reflow' after percutaneous coronary intervention.

    RN Piana;GY Paik;M Moscucci;DJ Cohen

  • Myonecrosis After Revascularization Procedures

    Robert M. Califf;Alaa E. Abdelmeguid;Richard E. Kuntz;Jeffrey J. Popma

  • Generalized model of restenosis after conventional balloon angioplasty, stenting and directional atherectomy

    Richard E. Kuntz;C.Michael Gibson;Masakiyo Nobuyoshi;Donald S. Baim

  • Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study of the Endeavor Zotarolimus-Eluting Phosphorylcholine-Encapsulated Stent for Treatment of Native Coronary Artery Lesions Clinical and Angiographic Results of the ENDEAVOR II Trial

    Jean Fajadet;William Wijns;Gert-Jan Laarman;Karl-Heinz Kuck

  • Phase 1/2 Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Dose-Escalating Trial of Myocardial Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor 2 Gene Transfer by Catheter Delivery in Patients With Chronic Myocardial Ischemia

    Douglas W. Losordo;Peter R. Vale;Robert C. Hendel;Charles E. Milliken

  • Impact of Sirolimus-Eluting Stents on Outcome in Diabetic Patients A SIRIUS (SIRolImUS-coated Bx Velocity balloon-expandable stent in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary artery lesions) Substudy

    Issam Moussa;Martin B. Leon;Donald S. Baim;William W. O’Neill

  • Final Results of the Can Routine Ultrasound Influence Stent Expansion (CRUISE) Study

    Peter J. Fitzgerald;Akio Oshima;Motoya Hayase;Jonas A. Metz

  • Clinical restenosis after coronary stenting: perspectives from multicenter clinical trials.

    Donald E Cutlip;Manish S Chauhan;Donald S Baim;Donald S Baim;Kalon K.L Ho;Kalon K.L Ho

  • Randomized Comparison of Distal Protection With a Filter-Based Catheter and a Balloon Occlusion and Aspiration System During Percutaneous Intervention of Diseased Saphenous Vein Aorto-Coronary Bypass Grafts

    Gregg W. Stone;Campbell Rogers;James Hermiller;Robert Feldman

Frequent Co-Authors

Jeffrey J. Popma
Jeffrey J. Popma Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Donald E. Cutlip
Donald E. Cutlip Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Donald S. Baim
Donald S. Baim Harvard University
David J. Cohen
David J. Cohen University of Missouri–Kansas City
Martin B. Leon
Martin B. Leon Columbia University Medical Center
Jeffrey W. Moses
Jeffrey W. Moses Columbia University Medical Center
Alexandra J. Lansky
Alexandra J. Lansky Yale University
Laura Mauri
Laura Mauri University of Milan
David R. Holmes
David R. Holmes Mayo Clinic
Paul S. Teirstein
Paul S. Teirstein Scripps Health

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 a career in medicine doesn’t have to follow a single path. Numerous related online degrees offer flexibility, affordability, and the opportunity to enter or advance in the healthcare field without attending traditional medical school.

For registered nurses aiming for advanced clinical roles, consider the cheapest bsn to dnp programs. These affordable programs allow nurses to earn a Doctor of Nursing Practice and take on leadership or specialized positions.

Interested in becoming a pharmacist? An online pharmacist degree opens doors to pharmaceutical careers, blending convenience and quality education.

For those intrigued by technology and healthcare data, a degree in health informatics can lead to roles managing patient information, hospital records, and digital health systems.

Entry-level healthcare careers are also accessible. Completing a low cost medical coding and billing online program provides the skills to process medical claims and support healthcare operations from anywhere.

These online degree pathways offer unique opportunities to join the healthcare workforce, whether you’re beginning your career or expanding your credentials.

Best Scientists Citing Richard E. Kuntz

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles