World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
87
Citations
28685
World Ranking
13616
National Ranking
36

Tom Fahey 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 Fahey 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: 472 publications — 53rd percentile

53% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Tom Fahey 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 Fahey 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: 87 D-Index — 34th percentile

34% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Tom Fahey is affiliated with the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Their research mainly focuses on Medicine, with a notable emphasis on General Health Professions, Economics and Econometrics, Geriatrics and Gerontology, Epidemiology, and Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine.

Their work encompasses several key topics, including Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes, Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life, Chronic Disease Management Strategies, Primary Care and Health Outcomes, Healthcare cost, quality, practices, Opioid Use Disorder Treatment, and Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes.

Tom Fahey has contributed to multiple publication venues, with frequent appearances in bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory), HRB Open Research, BMJ Open, Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research), and Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy.

Frequent coauthors collaborating with Tom Fahey include:

  • Frank Moriarty
  • Fiona Boland
  • Emma Wallace
  • Barbara Clyne
  • Mary E. Walsh

Among the recent papers featuring Tom Fahey's work are:

  • Evaluation of the General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) intervention to optimise prescribing in Irish primary care: a non-randomised pilot study, 2020, BMJ Open
  • COVID-19 Surveillance in a Primary Care Sentinel Network: In-Pandemic Development of an Application Ontology, 2020, JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
  • Factors associated with early and later dropout from methadone maintenance treatment in specialist addiction clinics: a six-year cohort study using proportional hazards frailty models for recurrent treatment episodes, 2020, Drug and Alcohol Dependence
  • Quality, scope and reporting standards of randomised controlled trials in Irish Health Research: an observational study, 2020, Trials
  • Acceptability of a nurse-led, person-centred, anticipatory care planning intervention for older people at risk of functional decline: A qualitative study, 2021, PLoS ONE

Best Publications

  • Is the Timed Up and Go test a useful predictor of risk of falls in community dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta- analysis

    Emma Barry;Rose Galvin;Claire Keogh;Frances N. Horgan

  • Interventions used to improve control of blood pressure in patients with hypertension.

    Liam G Glynn;Andrew W Murphy;Susan M Smith;Knut Schroeder

  • Antibiotics for acute bronchitis

    Susan M Smith;Tom Fahey;John Smucny;Lorne A Becker

  • Predictive accuracy of the Framingham coronary risk score in British men:prospective cohort study

    Peter Brindle;Jonathan Emberson;Fiona Lampe;Mary Walker

  • Managing patients with multimorbidity in primary care

    Emma Wallace;Chris J Salisbury;Bruce Guthrie;Cliona Lewis

  • Over-the-counter medications for acute cough in children and adults in ambulatory settings.

    Susan M Smith;Knut Schroeder;Tom Fahey

  • The expanding role of primary care in cancer control

    Greg Rubin;Annette Berendsen;S Michael Crawford;Rachel Dommett

  • Accuracy and impact of risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review

    Peter M Brindle;Andrew D Beswick;Tom F Fahey;Shah B Ebrahim

  • The Alvarado score for predicting acute appendicitis: a systematic review.

    Robert Ohle;Fran O'Reilly;Kirsty K O'Brien;Tom Fahey

  • How can we improve adherence to blood pressure-lowering medication in ambulatory care? Systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

    Knut Schroeder;Tom Fahey;Shah Ebrahim

  • Potentially inappropriate prescribing and cost outcomes for older people: a national population study

    Caitriona Cahir;Tom Fahey;Mary Teeling;Conor Teljeur

  • Interventions for improving adherence to treatment in patients with high blood pressure in ambulatory settings

    Knut Schroeder;Tom Fahey;Shah Ebrahim

  • Interventions to improve adherence to lipid lowering medication

    Angela Schedlbauer;Knut Schroeder;Tim Peters;Tom Fahey

  • Cohort study examining tamoxifen adherence and its relationship to mortality in women with breast cancer.

    C. McCowan;J. Shearer;P. T. Donnan;J. A. Dewar

  • The impact of patients' preferences on the treatment of atrial fibrillation: observational study of patient based decision analysisCommentary: patients, preferences, and evidence

    Joanne Protheroe;Liam Smeeth;Tom Fahey;Alan A Montgomery

  • Evaluation of computer based clinical decision support system and risk chart for management of hypertension in primary care: randomised controlled trial

    Alan A Montgomery;Tom Fahey;Tim J Peters;Christopher MacIntosh

  • Information leaflet and antibiotic prescribing strategies for acute lower respiratory tract infection: a randomized controlled trial.

    Paul Little;Kate Rumsby;Joanne Kelly;Louise Watson

  • Evidence based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews.

    T Fahey;S Griffiths;T J Peters

  • The impact of patients' preferences on the treatment of atrial fibrillation: observational study of patient based decision analysis.

    Joanne Protheroe;Tom Fahey;Alan A Montgomery;Tim J Peters

  • Quantitative systematic review of randomised controlled trials comparing antibiotic with placebo for acute cough in adults

    Tom Fahey;Nigel Stocks;Toby Thomas

Frequent Co-Authors

Lucy Yardley
Lucy Yardley University of Bristol
Anne Rogers
Anne Rogers University of Southampton
Glyn Lewis
Glyn Lewis University College London
Catherine Pope
Catherine Pope University of Oxford
Timothy J. Peters
Timothy J. Peters University of Bristol
Jon Nicholl
Jon Nicholl University of Sheffield
Rose Anne Kenny
Rose Anne Kenny Trinity College Dublin
Shah Ebrahim
Shah Ebrahim London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Peter T. Donnan
Peter T. Donnan University of Dundee
Thomas M. MacDonald
Thomas M. MacDonald University of Dundee

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

Expanding your career in medicine doesn’t always require attending traditional, on-campus programs. Many students and professionals are turning to online degrees for flexibility and a broader range of opportunities.

There are accredited options in various health fields. Those interested in nutrition and wellness can consider an online degree nutrition program, opening doors in community health and dietetics. If you see yourself in healthcare management, a cahme accredited online mha provides advanced leadership and administrative training.

Registered nurses (RNs) looking to boost their qualifications without in-person requirements can explore rn to bsn no clinical hours programs, which make balancing work and study easier. For nursing professionals aiming for the top of their field, enrolling in the shortest post master's dnp program offers an accelerated path to earning a doctorate and expanding clinical expertise.

These flexible online study routes reflect the evolving landscape of health education and can serve as excellent pathways for those seeking advancement in this dynamic industry.

Best Scientists Citing Tom Fahey

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles