World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
82
Citations
27815
World Ranking
15996
National Ranking
1468

Tim M. Cook 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 Tim M. Cook 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: 435 publications — 46th percentile

46% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Tim M. Cook 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 Tim M. Cook 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: 82 D-Index — 21st percentile

21% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Tim M. Cook is affiliated with the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom. Their research primarily falls within the field of Medicine, with a significant focus on subfields such as Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, Surgery, and Oncology.

The scientist's work covers several main topics, including:

  • Airway Management and Intubation Techniques
  • Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
  • Tracheal and airway disorders
  • COVID-19 and healthcare impacts
  • Infection Control and Ventilation
  • Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
  • Respiratory Support and Mechanisms

Tim M. Cook has published extensively with frequent appearances in several key venues:

  • Anaesthesia
  • British Journal of Anaesthesia
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
  • Anesthesiology
  • Clinical & Experimental Allergy

Some of their recent papers include:

  • Consensus guidelines for managing the airway in patients with COVID -19, 2020, Anaesthesia
  • Personal protective equipment during the coronavirus disease (COVID) 2019 pandemic - a narrative review, 2020, Anaesthesia
  • Outcomes from intensive care in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies, 2020, Anaesthesia
  • Emergency tracheal intubation in 202 patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: lessons learnt and international expert recommendations, 2020, British Journal of Anaesthesia
  • Recommendations for standards of monitoring during anaesthesia and recovery 2021, 2021, Anaesthesia

Their research collaborations have frequently included the following co-authors:

  • R. A. Armstrong
  • Andrew D. Kane
  • Jasmeet Soar
  • E. Kursumovic
  • Andrew Shrimpton

Best Publications

  • Major complications of airway management in the UK: results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 1: Anaesthesia

    T. M. Cook;N. Woodall;C. Frerk

  • Major complications of central neuraxial block: report on the Third National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists†

    T.M. Cook;D. Counsell;J.A.W. Wildsmith

  • Consensus guidelines for managing the airway in patients with COVID-19: Guidelines from the Difficult Airway Society, the Association of Anaesthetists the Intensive Care Society, the Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine and the Royal College of Anaesthetists.

    T. M. Cook;K. El‐Boghdadly;B. McGuire;A. F. McNarry

  • Major complications of airway management in the UK: results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 2: intensive care and emergency departments.

    T.M. Cook;N. Woodall;J. Harper;J. Benger

  • Guidelines for the management of tracheal intubation in critically ill adults

    A. Higgs;B.A. McGrath;C. Goddard;J. Rangasami

  • Personal protective equipment during the coronavirus disease (COVID) 2019 pandemic - a narrative review.

    T. M. Cook

  • Global patient outcomes after elective surgery: Prospective cohort study in 27 low-, middle- and high-income countries

    T Ahmad;RA Bouwman;I Grigoras;C Aldecoa

  • 5th National Audit Project (NAP5) on accidental awareness during general anaesthesia: summary of main findings and risk factors†‡

    J.J. Pandit;J. Andrade;D.G. Bogod;J.M. Hitchman

  • Complications and failure of airway management

    T.M. Cook;S.R. MacDougall-Davis

  • Tetanus: a review of the literature

    T.M. Cook;R.T. Protheroe;R.T. Protheroe;J.M. Handel

  • Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation

    Sharon R Lewis;Andrew R Butler;Joshua Parker;Tim M Cook

  • The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: a review of the literature.

    Tim M. Cook;Gene Lee;Jerry P. Nolan

  • Outcomes from intensive care in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

    R. A. Armstrong;A. D. Kane;T. M. Cook

  • Emergency tracheal intubation in 202 patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: lessons learnt and international expert recommendations.

    Wenlong Yao;Tingting Wang;Bailing Jiang;Bailing Jiang;Feng Gao

  • Anaesthesia, surgery, and life-threatening allergic reactions: epidemiology and clinical features of perioperative anaphylaxis in the 6th National Audit Project (NAP6)

    N.J.N. Harper;N.J.N. Harper;T.M. Cook;T.M. Cook;T.M. Cook;T. Garcez;L. Farmer

  • Combined spinal-epidural techniques.

    T. M. Cook

  • Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation: a Cochrane Systematic Review

    S.R. Lewis;A.R. Butler;J. Parker;T.M. Cook;T.M. Cook

  • A new practical classification of laryngeal view

    T. M. Cook

  • A systematic review and consensus definitions for standardised end-points in perioperative medicine: pulmonary complications

    T.E.F. Abbott;T.E.F. Abbott;A.J. Fowler;P. Pelosi;M. Gama de Abreu

  • Randomized crossover comparison of the ProSeal with the classic laryngeal mask airway in unparalysed anaesthetized patients

    T.M. Cook;J.P. Nolan;C. Verghese;P.J. Strube

Frequent Co-Authors

Jerry P. Nolan
Jerry P. Nolan University of Warwick
Michael P. W. Grocott
Michael P. W. Grocott University of Southampton
Paul S. Myles
Paul S. Myles Monash University
Giovanni Landoni
Giovanni Landoni Vita-Salute San Raffaele University
David Scott
David Scott Ascension Health
Lars S. Rasmussen
Lars S. Rasmussen University of Copenhagen
Rupert M. Pearse
Rupert M. Pearse Queen Mary University of London
Anthony E. Pickering
Anthony E. Pickering University of Bristol
Duminda N. Wijeysundera
Duminda N. Wijeysundera University of Toronto
Matthew T. V. Chan
Matthew T. V. Chan Chinese University of Hong Kong

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 online medical and nursing degrees can open flexible, affordable pathways into healthcare. Many students search for the cheapest phd nursing programs to reduce debt while gaining advanced expertise—ideal for those interested in leadership or academia.

For registered nurses aiming to boost credentials, enrolling in the cheapest bsn programs can be a cost-effective next step that’s highly valued by employers. Those new to nursing but with a non-nursing bachelor’s degree might consider the cheapest direct entry msn programs for a fast-track route into the profession.

Admission competitiveness can also be a concern. Seeking out direct admit nursing programs may offer a streamlined entry, forgoing lengthy prerequisites or waiting lists. These strategic options let you match your career goals and budget while navigating the many pathways available in medical education.

Best Scientists Citing Tim M. Cook

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles