World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Richard J. Wakefield

Richard J. Wakefield

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
86
Citations
26372
World Ranking
14152
National Ranking
1312

Richard J. Wakefield 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 J. Wakefield 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: 307 publications — 18th percentile

18% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Richard J. Wakefield 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 J. Wakefield 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: 86 D-Index — 31st percentile

31% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Richard J. Wakefield is affiliated with the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom and contributes primarily to the field of Medicine, with a focus on Rheumatology. Their research spans several subfields including Hematology, Surgery, Pathology and Forensic Medicine, and Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine.

The scientist is associated with multiple research topics, notably in rheumatoid arthritis and related therapies, as well as autoimmune and inflammatory disorders. Their main topics of work include:

  • Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
  • Spondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
  • Musculoskeletal synovial abnormalities and treatments
  • Autoimmune and Inflammatory Disorders Research
  • Systemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases
  • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
  • Ultrasound in Clinical Applications

Wakefield's research output includes publications in several notable venues. These include:

  • Lara D. Veeken
  • Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
  • RMD Open
  • Current Rheumatology Reports
  • Frontiers in Medicine

Their recent papers highlight a focus on ultrasound applications and inflammatory arthritis, including:

  • International consensus conference recommendations on ultrasound education for undergraduate medical students (2022, The Ultrasound Journal)
  • The Role of Musculoskeletal Ultrasound in the Rheumatoid Arthritis Continuum (2020, Current Rheumatology Reports)
  • Ultrasound erosions in the feet best predict progression to inflammatory arthritis in anti-CCP positive at-risk individuals without clinical synovitis (2020, Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases)
  • Ultrasound Imaging in Psoriatic Arthritis: What Have We Learnt in the Last Five Years? (2020, Frontiers in Medicine)
  • Dactylitis is an indicator of a more severe phenotype independently associated with greater SJC, CRP, ultrasound synovitis and erosive damage in DMARD-naive early psoriatic arthritis (2021, Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases)

The scientist frequently collaborates with several co-authors including:

  • Paul Emery
  • Andrea Di Matteo
  • Ai Lyn Tan
  • Kulveer Mankia
  • Helena Marzo-Ortega

Best Publications

  • Musculoskeletal ultrasound including definitions for ultrasonographic pathology

    Richard J Wakefield;Peter V Balint;Marcin Szkudlarek;Emilio Filippucci

  • Guidelines for musculoskeletal ultrasound in rheumatology

    Backhaus M;Burmester Gr;Gerber T;Grassi W

  • The value of sonography in the detection of bone erosions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison with conventional radiography.

    Richard J. Wakefield;Wayne W. Gibbon;Philip G. Conaghan;Philip O'Connor

  • An explanation for the apparent dissociation between clinical remission and continued structural deterioration in rheumatoid arthritis

    A. K. Brown;P. G. Conaghan;Z. Karim;M. A. Quinn

  • Presence of significant synovitis in rheumatoid arthritis patients with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-induced clinical remission: evidence from an imaging study may explain structural progression.

    A. K. Brown;M. A. Quinn;Z. Karim;P. G. Conaghan

  • 2012 Provisional classification criteria for polymyalgia rheumatica: A European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology collaborative initiative†

    Bhaskar Dasgupta;Marco A. Cimmino;Hilal Maradit Kremers;Wolfgang A. Schmidt

  • 2012 provisional classification criteria for polymyalgia rheumatica: a European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology collaborative initiative

    Bhaskar Dasgupta;Marco A Cimmino;Hilal Maradit-Kremers;Wolfgang A Schmidt

  • Should oligoarthritis be reclassified? Ultrasound reveals a high prevalence of subclinical disease

    R J Wakefield;M J Green;H Marzo-Ortega;P G Conaghan

  • Elucidation of the relationship between synovitis and bone damage: A randomized magnetic resonance imaging study of individual joints in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis

    Philip G. Conaghan;Philip O'Connor;Dennis McGonagle;Paul Astin

  • Scoring ultrasound synovitis in rheumatoid arthritis: a EULAR-OMERACT ultrasound taskforce - Part 1: definition and development of a standardised, consensus-based scoring system.

    Maria Antonietta D'Agostino;Lene Terslev;Philippe Aegerter;Marina Backhaus

  • The relationship between synovitis and bone changes in early untreated rheumatoid arthritis: a controlled magnetic resonance imaging study.

    Dennis McGonagle;Philip G. Conaghan;Philip O'Connor;Wayne Gibbon

  • Validation and reproducibility of ultrasonography in the detection of synovitis in the knee-A comparison with arthroscopy and clinical examination

    Z Karim;R J Wakefield;M Quinn;P G Conaghan

  • EULAR report on the use of ultrasonography in painful knee osteoarthritis. Part 1: Prevalence of inflammation in osteoarthritis

    M. A. D'Agostino;P. Conaghan;M. Le Bars;G. Baron

  • After treat-to-target: can a targeted ultrasound initiative improve RA outcomes?

    Richard J Wakefield;Maria Antonietta D'Agostino;Esperanza Naredo;Maya H Buch

  • Reliability of a consensus-based ultrasound score for tenosynovitis in rheumatoid arthritis

    Esperanza Naredo;Maria Antonietta D'Agostino;Richard J Wakefield;Ingrid Möller

  • Interobserver reliability in musculoskeletal ultrasonography: results from a “Teach the Teachers” rheumatologist course

    E Naredo;I Möller;C Moragues;J J de Agustín

  • Should imaging be a component of rheumatoid arthritis remission criteria? A comparison between traditional and modified composite remission scores and imaging assessments

    Benazir Saleem;Andrew K Brown;Helen Keen;Sharmin Nizam

  • Interobserver reliability of rheumatologists performing musculoskeletal ultrasonography : results from a EULAR Train the trainers course

    Alexander K Scheel;Wolfgang A Schmidt;Kay-Geert A Hermann;George A Bruyn

  • Persistence of mild, early inflammatory arthritis: the importance of disease duration, rheumatoid factor, and the shared epitope.

    Michael Green;Helena Marzo-Ortega;Dennis McGonagle;Richard Wakefield

  • A Systematic Literature Review Analysis of Ultrasound Joint Count and Scoring Systems to Assess Synovitis in Rheumatoid Arthritis According to the OMERACT Filter

    Peter Mandl;Esperanza Naredo;Richard J Wakefield;Philip G Conaghan

Frequent Co-Authors

Paul Emery
Paul Emery University of Leeds
Philip G. Conaghan
Philip G. Conaghan University of Leeds
Dennis McGonagle
Dennis McGonagle University of Leeds
Walter Grassi
Walter Grassi Marche Polytechnic University
Philip S. Helliwell
Philip S. Helliwell University of Leeds
Maxime Dougados
Maxime Dougados Hôpital Cochin
Mikkel Østergaard
Mikkel Østergaard University of Copenhagen
Nigel K. Arden
Nigel K. Arden University of Oxford
David Scott
David Scott Ascension Health
Maarten Boers
Maarten Boers 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

The path to a medical career in the USA is no longer limited to traditional medical school programs. Today, a variety of medical billing and coding online schools that accept financial aid offer flexible training for those interested in supporting healthcare systems. These programs are ideal for students seeking quick entry points to the industry, often with minimal up-front costs.

For individuals pursuing patient care, consider nursing school no entrance exam options. These programs typically waive standardized testing requirements, streamlining the admissions process for aspiring nurses. They provide a practical way for career-changers and first-time students to fast-track their nursing ambitions.

Leadership roles in healthcare are also more accessible with healthcare administration accelerated degree options available online. These programs are designed for professionals seeking management positions in healthcare facilities, clinics, and hospitals.

For registered nurses aiming to advance their clinical practice, asn to nurse practitioner programs provide a bridge toward becoming a nurse practitioner or advanced practice nurse, opening new avenues for specialization and career growth.

Best Scientists Citing Richard J. Wakefield

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles