World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
101
Citations
34944
World Ranking
8027
National Ranking
786

Tom Bourne 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 Tom Bourne 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: 767 publications — 85th percentile

85% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Tom Bourne 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 Tom Bourne 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: 101 D-Index — 61st percentile

61% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Tom Bourne is affiliated with Imperial College London in the United Kingdom and has made substantial contributions to the fields of medicine, particularly focusing on obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive health. Their research encompasses a broad range of topics within reproductive medicine and public health, addressing both clinical and epidemiological aspects of pregnancy and women's health.

Their recent publications include studies that cover key issues in early pregnancy and maternal-fetal healthcare. Notable papers include:

  • "Miscarriage matters: the epidemiological, physical, psychological, and economic costs of early pregnancy loss" (2021) published in The Lancet
  • "Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of COVID-19: coreporting of common outcomes from PAN-COVID and AAP-SONPM registries" (2021) in Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • "Consensus on revised definitions of Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) features of adenomyosis: results of modified Delphi procedure" (2021) in Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • "Recurrent miscarriage: evidence to accelerate action" (2021) in The Lancet
  • "Micronized vaginal progesterone to prevent miscarriage: a critical evaluation of randomized evidence" (2020) in American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Tom Bourne's collaboration network includes frequent co-authors such as D. Timmerman, M. Al-Memar, J. Barcroft, C. Kyriacou, and C. Landolfo. These partnerships have contributed to a diverse and extensive body of research, particularly in sonographic assessment and pregnancy outcomes.

Their scholarly output is prominently featured in venues such as:

  • Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • International Journal of Gynecological Cancer
  • Human Reproduction
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
  • BMJ Open

Bourne's main fields of study include Medicine, with significant subfields in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Reproductive Medicine, Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health, and Surgery. This multidisciplinary approach enables a comprehensive investigation of conditions related to reproductive and maternal health.

The primary topics of research cover areas such as:

  • Ectopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management
  • Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
  • Endometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
  • Reproductive System and Pregnancy
  • Endometriosis Research and Treatment
  • Intraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies
  • Maternal and fetal healthcare

Best Publications

  • Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group

    Dirk Timmerman;L Valentin;Tom Bourne;W P Collins

  • Miscarriage matters: the epidemiological, physical, psychological, and economic costs of early pregnancy loss

    Siobhan Quenby;Siobhan Quenby;Ioannis D Gallos;Rima K Dhillon-Smith;Marcelina Podesek

  • Effects of Tamoxifen on Uterus and Ovaries of Postmenopausal Women in a Randomised Breast Cancer Prevention Trial

    Rajendra P. Kedar;Thomas H. Bourne;Trevor J. Powles;William P. Collins

  • Systematic approach to sonographic evaluation of the pelvis in women with suspected endometriosis, including terms, definitions and measurements: a consensus opinion from the International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) group

    S. Guerriero;G. Condous;T. Van Den Bosch;L. Valentin

  • Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer

    D Timmerman;Antonia Carla Testa;T Bourne;L Ameye

  • Terms, definitions and measurements to describe sonographic features of myometrium and uterine masses: a consensus opinion from the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) group

    T. van den Bosch;M. Dueholm;F. P. G. Leone;Lil Valentin

  • Logistic Regression Model to Distinguish Between the Benign and Malignant Adnexal Mass Before Surgery: A Multicenter Study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group

    Dirk Timmerman;Antonia Carla Testa;Tom Bourne;Enrico Ferrazzi

  • Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group

    Dirk Timmerman;Lieveke Ameye;Daniela Fischerova;Elisabeth Epstein

  • Transvaginal colour flow imaging: A possible new screening technique for ovarian cancer

    T. Bourne;S. Campbell;C. Steer;M.I. Whitehead

  • Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model to differentiate between benign, borderline, early and advanced stage invasive, and secondary metastatic tumours: prospective multicentre diagnostic study.

    Ben Van Calster;Kirsten Van Hoorde;Lil Valentin;Antonia C Testa

  • Diagnostic Criteria for Nonviable Pregnancy Early in the First Trimester

    Peter M. Doubilet;Carol B. Benson;Tom Bourne;Michael Blaivas

  • Prevalence, potential risk factors for development and symptoms related to the presence of uterine niches following Cesarean section: systematic review

    A. J. M. Bij de Vaate;L. F. van der Voet;O. Naji;M. Witmer

  • The accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy prior to surgery

    George Condous;Emeka Okaro;Asma Khalid;Chuan Lu

  • Conventional and modern markers of endometrial receptivity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

    Laurentiu Craciunas;Ioannis Gallos;Justin Chu;Tom Bourne

  • Pregnancy of unknown location: a consensus statement of nomenclature, definitions, and outcome

    Kurt Barnhart;Norah M. van Mello;Tom Bourne;Tom Bourne;Emma Kirk

  • Predicting the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses based on the Simple Rules from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group

    Dirk Timmerman;Ben Van Calster;Antonia Testa;Luca Savelli

  • O-RADS US Risk Stratification and Management System: A Consensus Guideline from the ACR Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Committee

    Rochelle F. Andreotti;Dirk Timmerman;Lori M. Strachowski;Wouter Froyman

  • Subjective assessment of adnexal masses with the use of ultrasonography: an analysis of interobserver variability and experience

    Dirk Timmerman;P Schwärzler;W Collins;F Claerhout

  • Screening for early familial ovarian cancer with transvaginal ultrasonography and colour blood flow imaging.

    T. H. Bourne;S. Campbell;K. M. Reynolds;M. I. Whitehead

  • Screening for early familial ovarian cancer with transvaginal ultrasonography and color blood flow imaging

    T.H. Bourne;S. Campbell;K.M. Reynolds;M.I. Whitehead

Frequent Co-Authors

Lil Valentin
Lil Valentin Lund University
Aris T. Papageorghiou
Aris T. Papageorghiou University of Oxford
Davor Jurkovic
Davor Jurkovic University College London
Stuart Campbell
Stuart Campbell University of Cambridge
Thomas D'Hooghe
Thomas D'Hooghe Yale University
Bart De Moor
Bart De Moor KU Leuven

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 medical careers but not sure where to start? There are many affordable online degrees related to medicine, offering flexible alternatives to traditional paths.

For example, rhit programs online can prepare you for roles in health information management, a growing sector in healthcare data and record maintenance.

Those with an interest in administrative work can consider medical billing and coding classes online, which provide essential training for medical office settings and remote work opportunities.

If your goal is advanced clinical practice, the cheapest online nurse practitioner programs let registered nurses specialize and expand their scope without the need to relocate.

Additionally, aspiring nurses can pursue the cheapest bsn programs online to earn a Bachelor’s of Science in Nursing, boosting both qualifications and career advancement potential.

Exploring these online options not only broadens your medical career choices but can significantly reduce education costs and increase scheduling flexibility.

Best Scientists Citing Tom Bourne

Trending Scientists