World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
89
Citations
34066
World Ranking
12560
National Ranking
6427

Thomas W. 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 Thomas W. 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: 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: 489 publications — 56th percentile

56% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Thomas W. 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 Thomas W. 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: 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: 89 D-Index — 38th percentile

38% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Thomas W. Wakefield is affiliated with the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor in the United States. Their research predominantly focuses on the field of Medicine, with significant contributions to Surgery and Internal Medicine. They have also worked extensively in Emergency Medical Services, Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, and Hematology.

The main topics of their research include:

  • Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
  • Diagnosis and Treatment of Venous Diseases
  • Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
  • Blood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
  • Vascular Anomalies and Interventions
  • COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
  • Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes

Wakefield's frequently published research appears in the following venues:

  • Journal of Vascular Surgery Venous and Lymphatic Disorders
  • Current Problems in Surgery
  • Journal of Vascular Surgery
  • Arteriosclerosis Thrombosis and Vascular Biology
  • Blood

Their recent publications include:

  • "The 2020 update of the CEAP classification system and reporting standards," 2020, Journal of Vascular Surgery Venous and Lymphatic Disorders
  • "The 2020 appropriate use criteria for chronic lower extremity venous disease of the American Venous Forum, the Society for Vascular Surgery, the American Vein and Lymphatic Society, and the Society of Interventional Radiology," 2020, Journal of Vascular Surgery Venous and Lymphatic Disorders
  • "Practical diagnosis and treatment of suspected venous thromboembolism during COVID-19 pandemic," 2020, Journal of Vascular Surgery Venous and Lymphatic Disorders
  • "P- and E- selectin in venous thrombosis and non-venous pathologies," 2022, Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis
  • "Venous thrombosis epidemiology, pathophysiology, and anticoagulant therapies and trials in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection," 2020, Journal of Vascular Surgery Venous and Lymphatic Disorders

Wakefield frequently collaborates with multiple coauthors throughout their research. Notable frequent coauthors include:

  • T. Andrea
  • Peter K. Henke
  • Daniel D. Myers
  • Sriganesh Sharma
  • Oscar Moreno

Best Publications

  • Extracellular DNA traps promote thrombosis

    Tobias A. Fuchs;Alexander Brill;Daniel Duerschmied;Daphne Schatzberg

  • Revision of the CEAP classification for chronic venous disorders: Consensus statement

    Bo Eklöf;Robert B. Rutherford;John J. Bergan;Patrick H. Carpentier

  • Multidetector Computed Tomography for Acute Pulmonary Embolism

    Paul D. Stein;Sarah E. Fowler;Lawrence R. Goodman;Alexander Gottschalk

  • The care of patients with varicose veins and associated chronic venous diseases: Clinical practice guidelines of the Society for Vascular Surgery and the American Venous Forum

    Peter Gloviczki;Anthony J. Comerota;Michael C. Dalsing;Bo G. Eklof

  • Management of venous leg ulcers: clinical practice guidelines of the Society for Vascular Surgery ® and the American Venous Forum.

    Thomas F. O'Donnell;Marc A. Passman;William A. Marston;William J. Ennis

  • A validation study of a retrospective venous thromboembolism risk scoring method.

    Vinita Bahl;Hsou Mei Hu;Peter K. Henke;Thomas W. Wakefield

  • Diagnostic pathways in acute pulmonary embolism: Recommendations of the PIOPED II - Investigators

    Paul D. Stein;Pamela K. Woodard;John G. Weg;Thomas W. Wakefield

  • Clinical importance and management of splanchnic artery aneurysms.

    James C. Stanley;Thomas W. Wakefield;Linda M. Graham;Walter M. Whitehouse

  • The 2020 update of the CEAP classification system and reporting standards

    Fedor Lurie;Marc Passman;Mark Meisner;Michael Dalsing

  • von Willebrand factor-mediated platelet adhesion is critical for deep vein thrombosis in mouse models

    Alexander Brill;Alexander Brill;Tobias A. Fuchs;Tobias A. Fuchs;Anil K. Chauhan;Anil K. Chauhan;Janie J. Yang

  • Early thrombus removal strategies for acute deep venous thrombosis: Clinical Practice Guidelines of the Society for Vascular Surgery and the American Venous Forum

    Mark H. Meissner;Peter Gloviczki;Anthony J. Comerota;Michael C. Dalsing

  • Mechanisms of Venous Thrombosis and Resolution

    Thomas W. Wakefield;Daniel D. Myers;Peter K. Henke

  • Renal artery aneurysms: a 35-year clinical experience with 252 aneurysms in 168 patients.

    Peter K. Henke;Jeffry D. Cardneau;Theodore H. Welling;Gilbert R. Upchurch

  • Macrovascular thrombosis is driven by tissue factor derived primarily from the blood vessel wall

    Sharlene M. Day;Jennifer L. Reeve;Jennifer L. Reeve;Brian Pedersen;Brian Pedersen;Diana M Farris;Diana M Farris

  • Risk factors and clinical impact of postoperative symptomatic venous thromboembolism

    Chethan Gangireddy;John R. Rectenwald;Gilbert R. Upchurch;Thomas W. Wakefield

  • P-selectin and leukocyte microparticles are associated with venous thrombogenesis

    Daniel D. Myers;Angela E. Hawley;Diana M. Farris;Shirley K. Wrobleski

  • Critical Review of Mouse Models of Venous Thrombosis

    Jose Antionio Diaz;Andrea T. Obi;Daniel D. Myers;Daniel D. Myers;Shirley K. Wrobleski

  • Diagnosis and endovascular treatment of iliocaval compression syndrome.

    Darren R. Hurst;Andrew R. Forauer;Jess R. Bloom;Lazar J. Greenfield

  • Clinical characteristics and surgical management of vascular complications in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization : interventional versus diagnostic procedures

    Louis M. Messina;Thomas W. Wakefield;Gerald B. Zelenock

  • Management of venous leg ulcers: Clinical practice guidelines of the Society for Vascular Surgery and the American Venous Forum Endorsed by the American College of Phlebology and the Union Internationale de Phlébologie

    Marc A. Passman;William A. Marston;William J. Ennis;Michael Dalsing

Frequent Co-Authors

Peter K. Henke
Peter K. Henke University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
James C. Stanley
James C. Stanley University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Gilbert R. Upchurch
Gilbert R. Upchurch University of Florida
Lazar J. Greenfield
Lazar J. Greenfield University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Robert M. Strieter
Robert M. Strieter University of Virginia
Philip C. Andrews
Philip C. Andrews University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Steven L. Kunkel
Steven L. Kunkel University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
David M. Williams
David M. Williams Brown University
Stanislav Emelianov
Stanislav Emelianov Georgia Institute of Technology
Peter Gloviczki
Peter Gloviczki Mayo Clinic

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

If you’re interested in medical careers beyond becoming a physician, there are several flexible online degree options to explore. Programs in health information management are an excellent entry point, and you can find a him bachelor's degree online at many accredited and affordable institutions. These programs help students develop skills in organizing, managing, and securing patient health data—vital in today's healthcare landscape.

Medical billing and coding is another growing field with a strong demand for certified professionals. If this interests you, check out the details about medical billing and coding certification cost to see how you can begin your path to certification and employment in months rather than years.

For those looking to advance their nursing credentials, there are many most affordable online nurse practitioner programs and affordable nursing programs online. These paths can lead to advanced practice roles, higher salaries, and greater autonomy within healthcare teams. Pursuing these alternatives can offer rewarding career opportunities alongside—or instead of—traditional medical school.

Best Scientists Citing Thomas W. Wakefield

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles