Ranking Web of World Hospitals



Ranking Web of World Hospitals[1]

The "Webometrics Ranking of World Hospitals" is an initiative of the Cybermetrics Lab, a research group belonging to the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) the largest public research body in Spain.

CSIC is among the first basic research organizations in Europe. The CSIC consisted in 2006 of 126 centers and institutes distributed throughout Spain.

CSIC is attached to the Ministry of Education and Science and its main objective is to promote scientific research as to improve the progress of the scientific and technological level of the country which will contribute to increase the welfare of the citizens.

CSIC also plays an important role in the formation of new researchers and technicians in the different aspects of the science and the technology.

The organization collaborates with other institutions of the Spanish R&D system (Hospitals, autonomous goverments, other public and private research organisms) and with social, economic, national or foreign agents to which it contributes with its research capacity and human and material resources in the development of research projects or under the form of consultancy and scientific and technical support. CSIC was founded in 1939 from a previous body, the Junta para la Ampliación de Estudios e Investigaciones Científicas created in 1907 under the leadership of the Spanish Nobel Prize Prof. Ramón y Cajal.

The Instituto de Estudios Documentales sobre Ciencia y Tecnología (IEDCYT), was founded in 1954 to strengthen the scientific information of high quality in all fields of knowledge.

Cybermetrics Lab, part of the IEDCYT - CSIC, is devoted to the quantitative analysis of the Internet and Web contents specially those related to the processes of generation and scholarly communication of scientific knowledge. This is a new emerging discipline that has been called Cybermetrics (our team developed and publishes the free electronic journal Cybermetrics since 1997) or Webometrics.

The Cybermetrics Lab using quantitative methods has designed and applied indicators that allow us to measure the scientific activity on the Web. The cybermetric indicators are useful to evaluate science and technology and they are the perfect complement to the results obtained with bibliometric methods in scientometric studies.

The specific areas of research include:

• Development of Web indicators to be applied on the areas of the Spanish, European, Latinamerican and World R&D

• Quantitative studies about the scientific communication through electronic journals and repositories, and the impact of the Open Access initiatives.

• Development of indicators about resources in the Society of Information

• Indicators and social networks visualization on the Web with friendly, dynamic and interactive graphic interfaces

• Design and evaluation of documental analysis techniques of Web resources

• Gender studies applied to the scholar activity on the Web

• Development of applied cybermetrics techniques based on the positioning on search engines of Web domains

• Analysis of the information usage through Web data mining of log files

Objectives of the Webometrics Ranking of World's Hospitals

The original aim of the Ranking was to promote Web publication, not to rank institutions. Supporting Open Access initiatives, electronic access to scientific publications and to other academic material are our primary targets.

As other rankings focused only on a few relevant aspects, specially research results, web indicators based ranking reflects better the whole picture, as many other activities of professors and researchers are showed by their web presence.

The Web covers not only only formal (e-journals, repositories) but also informal scholarly communication. Web publication is cheaper, maintaining the high standards of quality of peer review processes. It could also reach much larger potential audiences, offering access to scientific knowledge to researchers and institutions located in developing countries and also to third parties (economic, industrial, political or cultural stakeholders) in their own community.

The Webometrics ranking has a larger coverage than other similar rankings. The ranking is not only focused on research results but also in other indicators which may reflect better the global quality of the scholar and research institutions worldwide.

We intend to motivate both institutions and scholars to have a web presence that reflect accurately their activities. If the web performance of an institution is below the expected position according to their academic excellence, hospital authorities should reconsider their web policy, promoting substantial increases of the volume and quality of their electronic publications.

Coverage of the Webometrics Ranking of World Hospitals

This table summarize the actual coverage of the Ranking, in terms of number of countries and institutions around the world.

[pic]

Design and Weighting of Indicators

The unit for analysis is the institutional domain, so only hospitals with an independent web domain are considered. If an institution has more than one main domain, two or more entries are used with the different addresses.

The first Web indicator, Web Impact Factor (WIF), was based on link analysis that combines the number of external inlinks and the number of pages of the website, a ratio of 1:1 between visibility and size. This ratio is used for the ranking, adding two new indicators to the size component: Number of documents, measured from the number of rich files in a web domain, and number of publications being collected by Google Scholar database.

Four indicators were obtained from the quantitative results provided by the main search engines as follows:

Size (S). Number of pages recovered from four engines: Google, Yahoo, Live Search and Exalead.

Visibility (V). The total number of unique external links received (inlinks) by a site can be only confidently obtained from Yahoo Search, Live Search and Exalead.

Rich Files (R). After evaluation of their relevance to academic and publication activities and considering the volume of the different file formats, the following were selected: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), Microsoft Excel (.xls), Microsoft Word (.doc) and Microsoft Powerpoint (.ppt). These data were extracted using Google.

Scholar (Sc). Google Scholar provides the number of papers and citations for each academic domain. These results from the Scholar database represent papers, reports and other academic items.

The four ranks were combined according to a formula where each one has a different weight but maintaining the ratio 1:1:

[pic]

The inclusion of the total number of pages is based on the recognition of a new global market for academic information, so the web is the adequate platform for the internationalization of the institutions. A strong and detailed web presence providing exact descriptions of the structure and activities of the hospital can attract new students and medical doctors worldwide.

The number of external inlinks received by a domain is a measure that represents visibility and impact of the published material, and although there is a great diversity of motivations for linking, a significant fraction works in a similar way as bibliographic citation.

The success of self-archiving and other repositories related initiatives can be roughly represented from rich file and Scholar data. The huge numbers involved with the pdf and doc formats means that not only administrative reports and bureaucratic forms are involved. Excel and Powerpoint files are clearly related to academic activities.

|Methodology |[|

| |p|

| |i|

| |c|

| |]|

|[pic] |

| |

|PRESENTATION |

| |

|The Webometrics Ranking of World Hospitals formally and explicitly adheres to the Berlin Principles of Higher Education |

|Institutions. The ultimate aim is the continuous improvement and refinement of the methodologies according to a set of agreed |

|principles of good practices. |

|0) Background of the project. |

|The “World Hospitals' ranking on the Web” is an initiative of the Cybermetrics Lab, a research group of the Centro de |

|Información y Documentación (CINDOC), part of the National Research Council (CSIC), the largest public research body in Spain.|

|Cybermetrics Lab is devoted to the quantitative analysis of the Internet and Web contents specially those related to the |

|processes of generation and scholarly communication of scientific knowledge. This is a new emerging discipline that has been |

|called Cybermetrics (our team developed and publishes the free electronic journal Cybermetrics since 1997) or Webometrics. |

|[pic] |

|With these rankings we intend to provide extra motivation to researchers worldwide for publishing more and better scientific |

|content on the Web, making it available to colleagues and people wherever they are located. |

|The "Webometrics Ranking of World Hospitals" is launched in a "Beta" phase, and it is intended that once it reaches its |

|definitive version it will be be updated every 6 months (data collected in January and July and published one month later). |

|The Web indicators used are based and correlated with traditional scientometric and bibliometric indicators and the goal of |

|the project is to convince academic and political communities of the importance of the web publication not only for |

|dissemination of the academic knowledge but for measuring scientific activities, performance and impact too. |

|A) Purposes and Goals of Rankings |

|1. Assessment of higher education (processes, and outputs) in the Web. The Web indicators and we are already publishing |

|comparative analysis with similar initiatives. But the current objective of the Webometrics Ranking is to promote Web |

|publication by Hospitals, evaluating the commitment to the electronic distribution  of these organizations and to fight a very|

|concerning academic digital divide which is evident even among world Hospitals from developed countries. However, even when we|

|do not intend to assess hospital performance solely on the basis of their web output, Webometrics Ranking is measuring a wider|

|range of activities than the current generation of bibliometric indicators that focuses only in the activities of scientific |

|elite. |

|2. Ranking purpose and target groups. Webometrics Ranking is measuring the volume, visibility and impact of the web pages |

|published by Hospitals, with special emphasis in the scientific output (referred papers, conference contributions, pre-prints,|

|monographs, thesis, reports, …) but also taking into account other materials (courseware, seminars or workshops documentation,|

|digital libraries, databases, multimedia, personal pages, …) and the general information on the institution, their |

|departments, research groups or supporting services and people working or attending courses. |

|There is a direct target group for the Ranking which are the hospital authorities. If the web performance of an institution is|

|below the expected position according to their academic excellence, they should reconsider their web policy, promoting |

|substantial increases in the volume and quality of their electronic publications. |

|Hospital members are indirect target groups as we expect that in a near future the web information could be as important as |

|other bibliometric and scientometric indicators for the evaluation of the scientific performance of scholars and their |

|research groups. |

|3. Diversity of institutions: Missions and goals of the institutions. Quality measures for research-oriented institutions, for|

|example, are quite different from those that are appropriate for institutions that provide broad access to underserved |

|communities. Institutions that are being ranked and the experts that inform the ranking process should be consulted often. |

|4. Information sources and interpretation of the data provided. Access to the Web information is done mainly through search |

|engines. These intermediaries are free, universal, and very powerful even when considering their shortcomings (coverage |

|limitations and biases, lack of transparency, commercial secrets and strategies, irregular behaviour). Search engines are key |

|for measuring visibility and impact of hospitals’ websites. |

|There are a limited number of sources that can be useful for webometric purposes: 7 general search engines (Google*, Yahoo |

|Search*, Live (MSN) Search*, Exalead*, Ask (Teoma), Gigablast and Alexa) and 2 specialised scientific databases (Google |

|Scholar* and Live Academic). All of them have very large (huge) independent databases, but due to the availability of their |

|data collection procedures (APIs), only those marked with asterisk are used in compiling the Webometrics Ranking. |

|5. Linguistic, cultural, economic, and historical contexts. The project intends to have true global coverage, not narrowing |

|the analysis to a few hundreds of institutions (world-class Hospitals) but including as many organizations as possible. The |

|only requirement in our international rankings is having an autonomous web presence with an independent web domain. This |

|approach allows a larger number of institutions to monitor their current ranking and the evolution of this position after |

|adopting specific policies and initiatives. Hospitals in developing countries have the opportunity to know precisely the |

|indicators' threshold that marks the limit of the elite. |

|Current identified biases of the Webometrics Ranking includes the traditional linguistic one (more than half of the internet |

|users are English-speaking people), and a new disciplinary one (technology instead of biomedicine is at the moment the hot |

|topic) Since in most cases the infrastructure (web space) and the connectivity to the Internet already exits , the economic |

|factor is not considered a major limitation (at least for the 1.000 Top Hospitals). |

|B) Design and Weighting of Indicators |

|6. Methodology used to create the rankings. The unit for analysis is the institutional domain, so only that Hospitals with an |

|independent web domain are considered. If an institution has more than one main domain, two or more entries are used with the |

|different addresses. About 5-10% of the institutions have no independent web presence, most of them located in developing |

|countries. Names and addresses were collected from both national and international sources including among others: |

| Hospitals Worldwide |

|   |

| |

| Allianz worldwide care medical provider finder |

|   |

| |

| CISMEF, Catalogue et Index des Sites Médicaux  Francophones |

|   |

| |

| US Hospitals |

|  u-s- |

| |

|Hospital activity is multi-dimensional and this is reflected in its web presence. So the best way to build the ranking is |

|combining a group of indicators that measures these different aspects. Almind & Ingwersen proposed the first Web indicator, |

|Web Impact Factor (WIF), based on link analysis that combines the number of external inlinks and the number of pages of the |

|website, a ratio of 1:1 between visibility and size. This ratio is used for the ranking but adding two new indicators to the |

|size component: Number of documents, measured from the number of rich files in a web domain, and number of publications being |

|collected by Google Scholar database. As it has been already commented, the four indicators were obtained from the |

|quantitative results provided by the main search engines as follows: |

|Size (S). Number of pages recovered from four engines: Google, Yahoo, Live Search and Exalead. For each engine, results are |

|log-normalised to 1 for the highest value. Then for each domain, maximum and minimum results are excluded and every |

|institution is assigned a rank according to the combined sum. |

|Visibility (V). The total number of unique external links received (inlinks) by a site can be only confidently obtained from |

|Yahoo Search, Live Search and Exalead. For each engine, results are log-normalised to 1 for the highest value and then |

|combined to generate the rank. |

|Rich Files (R). After evaluation of their relevance to academic and publication activities and considering the volume of the |

|different file formats, the following were selected: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), Microsoft Excel (.xls), Microsoft Word (.doc) and |

|Microsoft Powerpoint (.ppt). These data were extracted using Google and merging the results for each filetype after |

|log-normalising in the same way as described before. |

|Scholar (Sc). Google Scholar provides the number of papers and citations for each academic domain. These results from the |

|Scholar database represent papers, reports and other academic items. |

|The four ranks were combined according to a formula where each one has a different weight: |

|Webometrics Rank (position)= |

|4*RankV+2*RankS+1*RankR+1*RankSc |

|7. Relevance and validity of the indicators. The choice of the indicators was done according to several criteria (see note), |

|some of them trying to catch quality and academic and institutional strengths but others intending to promote web publication |

|and Open Access initiatives. The inclusion of the total number of pages is based on the recognition of a new global market for|

|academic information, so the web is the adequate platform for the internationalization of the institutions. A strong and |

|detailed web presence providing exact descriptions of the structure and activities of the university can attract new students |

|and scholars worldwide . The number of external inlinks received by a domain is a measure that represents visibility and |

|impact of the published material, and although there is a great diversity of motivations for linking, a significant fraction |

|works in a similar way as bibliographic citation. The success of self-archiving and other repositories related initiatives can|

|be roughly represented from rich file and Scholar data. The huge numbers involved with the pdf and doc formats means that not |

|only administrative reports and bureaucratic forms are involved. Excel and Powerpoint files are clearly related to academic |

|activities. |

|8. Measure outcomes in preference to inputs whenever possible. Data on inputs are relevant as they reflect the general |

|condition of a given establishment and are more frequently available. Measures of outcomes provide a more accurate assessment |

|of the standing and/or quality of a given institution or program. We expect to offer a better balance in the future, but |

|current edition intend to call the attention to incomplete strategies, inadequate policies and bad practices in web |

|publication before attempting a more complete scenario. |

|9. Weighting the different indicators: Current and future evolution. The current rules for ranking indicators including the |

|described weighting model has been tested and published in scientific papers. More research is still done on this topic, but |

|the final aim is to develop a model that includes additional quantitative data, especially bibliometric and scientometric |

|indicators. |

|C) Collection and Processing of Data |

|10. Ethical standards. We identified some relevant biases in the search engines data including under-representation of some |

|countries and languages. As the behaviour is different for each engine, a good practice consists of combining results from |

|several sources. Any other mistake or error is unintentional and it should not affect the credibility of the ranking. Please |

|contact us if you think the ranking is not objective and impartial in any way. |

|11. Audited and verifiable data. The only source for the data of the Webometrics Ranking is a small set of globally available,|

|free access search engines. All the results can be duplicated according to the describing methodologies taking into account |

|the explosive growth of the web contents, their volatility and the irregular behaviour of the commercial engines. |

|12. Data collection. Data are collected during the same week, in two consecutive rounds for each strategy, being selected the |

|higher value. Every website under common institutional domain is explored, but no attempt has been done to combine contents or|

|links from different domains. |

|13. Quality of the ranking processes. After automatic collection of data, positions are checked manually and compared with |

|previous editions. Some of the processes are duplicated and new expertise is added from a variety of sources. Pages that |

|linked to the Webometrics Ranking are explored and comments from blogs and other fora are taken into account. Finally, our |

|mailbox receives a lot of requests and suggestions that are acknowledged individually. |

|14. Organizational measures to enhance credibility. The ranking results and methodologies are discussed in scientific |

|journals, and presented in international conferences. We expect international advisory or even supervisory bodies to take part|

|in future developments of the ranking. |

|D) Presentation of Ranking Results |

|15. Display of data and factors involved. The published tables show all the Web indicators used in a very synthetic and visual|

|way. Rankings are provided not only from a central Top 1000 classification but also considering several regional rankings for |

|comparative purposes. |

|16. Updating and error reducing. The listings are offered from asp dynamic pages build on several databases that can be |

|corrected when errors or typos are detected. |

|Coments welcomed |

|Our group thanks the comments, suggestions and proposals than can be useful for improving this website. We try to maintain an |

|objective position on the quantitative data provided but mistakes can occur. Please, take into account that merging, domain |

|change or networks problems can affect the ranking of the institutions. |

|Currently the members of our team are Isidro F. AGUILLO, José Luis ORTEGA, Mario FERNÁNDEZ (Webmaster) and Ana UTRILLA. |

|For more information please contact: |

|Isidro F. Aguillo |

|CINDOC - CSIC |

|Joaquín Costa, 22 |

|28002 Madrid. SPAIN |

|Notes: |

|- Aguillo, I. F.; Granadino, B.; Ortega, J. L.; Prieto, J. A. (2006). Scientific research activity and communication measured |

|with cybermetric indicators. Journal of the American Society for the Information Science and Technology, 57(10): 1296 - 1302. |

|- Wouters, P.; Reddy, C. & Aguillo, I. F. (2006). On the visibility of information on the Web: an exploratory experimental |

|approach. Research Evaluation, 15(2):107-115. |

|- Ortega, J L; Aguillo, I.F.; Prieto, JA. (2006). Longitudinal Study of Contents and Elements in the Scientific Web |

|environment. Journal of Information Science, 32(4):344-351. |

|- Kretschmer, H. & Aguillo, I. F. (2005).New indicators for gender studies in Web networks. Information Processing & |

|Management, 41 (6): 1481-1494. |

|- Aguillo, I. F.; Granadino, B.; Ortega, J.L. & Prieto, J.A. (2005). What the Internet says about Science. The Scientist, |

|19(14):10, Jul. 18, 2005. |

|- Kretschmer, H. & Aguillo, I. F. (2004). Visibility of collaboration on the Web. Scientometrics, 61(3): 405-426. |

|- Cothey V, Aguillo IF & Arroyo N (2006). Operationalising “Websites”: lexically, semantically or topologically?. |

|Cybermetrics, 10(1): Paper 4. |

|Distribution by Continent |[|

| |p|

| |i|

| |c|

| |]|

|[pic] |

|  |

|  |

|  |

|  |

| |

|CONTINENT |

|Top 200 |

|Top 500 |

|Top 1000 |

| |

|  |

|  |

|  |

|  |

| |

|USA & Canada |

|125 |

|313 |

|623 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|Europe |

|56 |

|131 |

|253 |

| |

| |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|Asia |

|15 |

|42 |

|92 |

| |

| |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|Oceania |

|2 |

|8 |

|18 |

| |

| |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|Rest of America |

|2 |

|4 |

|9 |

| |

| |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|Arab World |

| |

|2 |

|3 |

| |

| |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|Africa |

| |

| |

|2 |

| |

| |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|  |

|[pic] |

| |

|[pic] |

|Distribution by Country |

|[pic] |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

| |

|  |

|  |

|  |

|  |

|  |

|  |

| |

|RANK |

|COUNTRY |

|  |

|Top 200 |

|Top 500 |

|Top 1000 |

| |

|  |

|  |

|  |

|  |

|  |

|  |

| |

|1 |

|United States of America |

|[pic] |

|115 |

|287 |

|571 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|2 |

|Germany |

|[pic] |

|17 |

|29 |

|45 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|3 |

|Canada |

|[pic] |

|10 |

|26 |

|52 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|4 |

|Netherlands |

|[pic] |

|7 |

|12 |

|18 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|5 |

|Sweden |

|[pic] |

|7 |

|10 |

|11 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|6 |

|Taiwan |

|[pic] |

|6 |

|16 |

|25 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|7 |

|Japan |

|[pic] |

|5 |

|9 |

|20 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|8 |

|Switzerland |

|[pic] |

|5 |

|8 |

|15 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|9 |

|France |

|[pic] |

|5 |

|8 |

|12 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|10 |

|United Kingdom |

|[pic] |

|3 |

|13 |

|39 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|11 |

|Austria |

|[pic] |

|2 |

|7 |

|14 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|12 |

|Republic Of Korea |

|[pic] |

|2 |

|7 |

|12 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|13 |

|Austria |

|[pic] |

|2 |

|5 |

|8 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|14 |

|Israel |

|[pic] |

|2 |

|4 |

|7 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|15 |

|Italy |

|[pic] |

|1 |

|14 |

|35 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|16 |

|Spain |

|[pic] |

|1 |

|6 |

|13 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|17 |

|Czech Republic |

|[pic] |

|1 |

|6 |

|11 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|18 |

|Norway |

|[pic] |

|1 |

|4 |

|4 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|19 |

|Thailand |

|[pic] |

|1 |

|3 |

|9 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|20 |

|Turkey |

|[pic] |

|1 |

|2 |

|6 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|21 |

|Belgium |

|[pic] |

|1 |

|1 |

|6 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|22 |

|Hong Kong |

|[pic] |

|1 |

|1 |

|2 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|23 |

|Switzerland |

|[pic] |

|1 |

|1 |

|2 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|24 |

|Argentina |

|[pic] |

|1 |

|1 |

|1 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|25 |

|Iceland |

|[pic] |

|1 |

|1 |

|1 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|26 |

|Estonia |

|[pic] |

|1 |

|1 |

|1 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|27 |

|Finland |

|[pic] |

| |

|4 |

|5 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|28 |

|China |

|[pic] |

| |

|3 |

|8 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|29 |

|Singapore |

|[pic] |

| |

|2 |

|6 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|30 |

|Brazil |

|[pic] |

| |

|2 |

|5 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|31 |

|New Zealand |

|[pic] |

| |

|1 |

|4 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|32 |

|Poland |

|[pic] |

| |

|1 |

|4 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|33 |

|Russian Federation |

|[pic] |

| |

|1 |

|3 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|34 |

|Denmark |

|[pic] |

| |

|1 |

|3 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|35 |

|Iran (Islamic Republic of) |

|[pic] |

| |

|1 |

|3 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|36 |

|United Arab Emirates |

|[pic] |

| |

|1 |

|1 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|37 |

|Qatar |

|[pic] |

| |

|1 |

|1 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|38 |

|India |

|[pic] |

| |

| |

|5 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|39 |

|Croatia (local name: Hrvatska) |

|[pic] |

| |

| |

|2 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|40 |

|Malaysia |

|[pic] |

| |

| |

|2 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|41 |

|Slovenia |

|[pic] |

| |

| |

|2 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|42 |

|South Africa |

|[pic] |

| |

| |

|1 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|43 |

|Ireland |

|[pic] |

| |

| |

|1 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|44 |

|Latvia |

|[pic] |

| |

| |

|1 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|45 |

|Saudi Arabia |

|[pic] |

| |

| |

|1 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|46 |

|Swaziland |

|[pic] |

| |

| |

|1 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|47 |

|Uruguay |

|[pic] |

| |

| |

|1 |

| |

|[pic] |

| |

|  |

Ranking Web of World Hospital[2]

|  |  |  |POSITION |

| | |[pic] |

|WORLD RANK |HOSPITAL |COUNTRY | SIZE | VISIBILITY |RICH FILES |SCHOLAR |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |

|1 |University of Michigan Health System |[pic] |6 |5 |8 |15 |

|[pic] |

|2 |University of Texas Medical Branch |[pic] |5 |13 |2 |7 |

|[pic] |

|3 |NYU Medical Center |[pic] |2 |11 |6 |23 |

|[pic] |

|4 |University of Kansas Medical Center |[pic] |8 |14 |4 |10 |

|[pic] |

|5 |University of Virginia Health System |[pic] |3 |27 |1 |14 |

|[pic] |

|6 |Johns Hopkins Medicine |[pic] |21 |12 |12 |40 |

|[pic] |

|7 |Vanderbilt Medical Center |[pic] |19 |22 |16 |21 |

|[pic] |

|8 |Massachusetts General Hospital |[pic] |27 |19 |35 |4 |

|[pic] |

|9 |University of Rochester Medical Center |[pic] |9 |25 |11 |39 |

|[pic] |

|10 |MD Anderson Cancer Center |[pic] |28 |23 |15 |51 |

|[pic] |

|11 |University of Miami Hospital & Clinic |[pic] |14 |31 |22 |42 |

|[pic] |

|12 |Texas Tech Health Sciences Center |[pic] |25 |36 |10 |46 |

|[pic] |

|13 |University California Davis Health System|[pic] |54 |4 |50 |99 |

|[pic] |

|14 |Columbia University Medical Center |[pic] |50 |34 |36 |44 |

|[pic] |

|15 |University of Maryland Medical Center |[pic] |10 |26 |76 |86 |

|[pic] |

|16 |University of Kentucky Academic Medical |[pic] |65 |41 |14 |28 |

| |Center | | | | | |

|[pic] |

|17 |University of Texas Southwestern Medical |[pic] |12 |56 |43 |31 |

| |Center at Dallas | | | | | |

|[pic] |

|18 |Wake Forest University Baptist Medical |[pic] |20 |65 |7 |38 |

| |Center | | | | | |

|[pic] |

|19 |University of Arkansas Medical Center |[pic] |7 |71 |3 |56 |

|[pic] |

|20 |University of Connecticut Health Center |[pic] |11 |75 |17 |25 |

|[pic] |

|21 |University of Nebraska Medical Center |[pic] |23 |69 |9 |67 |

|[pic] |

|22 |Children's Hospital Boston |[pic] |61 |48 |40 |76 |

|[pic] |

|23 |Loma Linda University Adventist Health |[pic] |24 |73 |70 |61 |

| |Sciences Center | | | | | |

|[pic] |

|24 |Taipei Veterans General Hospital |[pic] |33 |126 |5 |1 |

|[pic] |

|25 |Wright Patterson Medical Center |[pic] |173 |40 |20 |104 |

|[pic] |

|26 |Hospital for Sick Children |[pic] |41 |49 |146 |173 |

|[pic] |

|27 |Brigham and Women's Hospital |[pic] |35 |86 |62 |145 |

|[pic] |

|28 |Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center |[pic] |37 |105 |79 |71 |

| |Boston | | | | | |

|[pic] |

|29 |George Washington University Medical |[pic] |40 |120 |27 |72 |

| |Center | | | | | |

|[pic] |

|30 |Cedars Sinai Medical Center |[pic] |69 |96 |49 |114 |

|[pic] |

|31 |Rush University Medical Center |[pic] |29 |93 |150 |78 |

|[pic] |

|32 |Buddhist Tzu Chi General Hospital |[pic] |116 |97 |68 |34 |

|[pic] |

|33 |Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical |[pic] |43 |83 |118 |129 |

| |Center | | | | | |

|[pic] |

|34 |University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics |[pic] |147 |64 |110 |70 |

|[pic] |

|35 |Universitatsklinikum Gießen und Marburg |[pic] |76 |115 |78 |64 |

|[pic] |

|36 |Partners Healthcare System |[pic] |72 |3 |82 |439 |

|[pic] |

|37 |University Clinic Heidelberg |[pic] |4 |173 |24 |37 |

| |Universitatsklinikum Heidelberg | | | | | |

|[pic] |

|38 |Centre Hopistalier Universitaire de Roue |[pic] |42 |70 |326 |30 |

|[pic] |

|39 |University of New Mexico Health Sciences |[pic] |117 |132 |23 |77 |

| |Center | | | | | |

|[pic] |

|40 |University of Cincinnati Hospital |[pic] |138 |99 |92 |101 |

|[pic] |

|41 |Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover |[pic] |16 |191 |42 |29 |

|[pic] |

|42 |National Cancer Center Hospital |[pic] |175 |66 |66 |220 |

|[pic] |

|43 |Hospital Authority |[pic] |58 |122 |18 |240 |

|[pic] |

|44 |Children's Hospital of Philadelphia |[pic] |59 |67 |156 |296 |

|[pic] |

|45 |Chu de Lyon Hopitaux de Lyon |[pic] |215 |90 |64 |152 |

|[pic] |

|46 |Assistance Publique Hopitaux de Paris |[pic] |80 |148 |52 |160 |

|[pic] |

|47 |University of Mississippi Medical Center |[pic] |197 |151 |21 |27 |

|[pic] |

|48 |Institut Curie |[pic] |156 |95 |189 |105 |

|[pic] |

|49 |Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center |[pic] |49 |29 |581 |87 |

|[pic] |

|50 |Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum |[pic] |77 |165 |138 |45 |

|[pic] |

|51 |Arizona State Hospital |[pic]|107 |172 |13 |119 |

|[pic] |

|52 |Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children |[pic]|140 |150 |41 |122 |

|[pic] |

|53 |Universitatsklinikum Hamburg Eppendorf |[pic]|87 |198 |59 |24 |

|[pic] |

|54 |Landstinget Gavleborg |[pic]|218 |106 |100 |144 |

|[pic] |

|55 |University of Missouri Health Care |[pic]|202 |160 |67 |53 |

|[pic] |

|56 |Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Hospital |[pic]|185 |136 |177 |68 |

|[pic] |

|57 |Inselspital Universitatsspital Bern |[pic]|114 |170 |141 |116 |

|[pic] |

|58 |Calgary Health Region |[pic]|139 |197 |33 |103 |

|[pic] |

|59 |Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center |[pic]|181 |149 |56 |188 |

|[pic] |

|60 |Chang Gung Memorial Hospital |[pic]|67 |260 |37 |3 |

|[pic] |

|61 |Seattle Children's Hospital and Medical Center |[pic]|198 |109 |117 |269 |

|[pic] |

|62 |Institut Municipal d'Investigació Medica Hospital del Mar |[pic]|134 |219 |104 |57 |

|[pic] |

|63 |Royal Children's Hospital |[pic]|84 |247 |45 |118 |

|[pic] |

|64 |Sarasota Memorial Hospital |[pic]|377 |100 |168 |111 |

|[pic] |

|65 |Universitatsklinikums Munster |[pic]|110 |210 |145 |124 |

|[pic] |

|66 |Walter Reed Army Medical Center |[pic]|189 |181 |72 |245 |

|[pic] |

|67 |Scott and White Memorial Hospital |[pic]|82 |51 |575 |319 |

|[pic] |

|68 |Camh Centre for Addiction & Mental Health |[pic]|196 |104 |535 |32 |

|[pic] |

|69 |Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois Lausanne |[pic]|205 |257 |46 |35 |

|[pic] |

|70 |Boston Medical Center |[pic]|537 |60 |154 |150 |

|[pic] |

|71 |Norrbottens Lans Landsting |[pic]|206 |239 |19 |137 |

|[pic] |

|72 |City of Hope CA |[pic]|133 |177 |226 |240 |

|[pic] |

|73 |Duke University Health System |[pic]|60 |52 |511 |474 |

|[pic] |

|74 |Asklepios Klinikum Bad Abbach |[pic]|71 |202 |339 |162 |

|[pic] |

|75 |Universitatsklinikum Tubingen University Hospital Tubingen |[pic]|51 |307 |126 |55 |

|[pic] |

|76 |London Health Sciences Centre |[pic]|228 |232 |74 |123 |

|[pic] |

|77 |University of North Carolina Healthcare |[pic]|192 |201 |203 |164 |

|[pic] |

|78 |Landstinget i Uppsala Lan |[pic]|182 |176 |95 |374 |

|[pic] |

|79 |Fox Chase Cancer Center |[pic]|320 |174 |213 |107 |

|[pic] |

|80 |University of Pittsburgh Medical Center |[pic]|18 |21 |422 |838 |

|[pic] |

|81 |University of Wisconsin Health |[pic]|146 |10 |427 |736 |

|[pic] |

|82 |Landspitalinn National University Hospital |[pic]|261 |241 |34 |216 |

|[pic] |

|83 |Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven |[pic]|222 |252 |148 |125 |

|[pic] |

|84 |TU Kliinikum Tartu University Hospital |[pic]|236 |217 |77 |314 |

|[pic] |

|85 |Seoul National University Hospital |[pic]|122 |147 |220 |557 |

|[pic] |

|86 |Detroit Medical Center |[pic]|230 |89 |310 |534 |

|[pic] |

|87 |Landstinget I Östergötland |[pic]|121 |365 |25 |66 |

|[pic] |

|88 |Academisch Medisch Centrum |[pic]|119 |291 |180 |166 |

|[pic] |

|89 |Institute of Cancer Research Royal Cancer Hospital |[pic]|401 |139 |337 |148 |

|[pic] |

|90 |Vancouver Coastal Health |[pic]|467 |179 |93 |177 |

|[pic] |

|91 |Erasmus Medisch Centrum Universitait Medisch Centrum Rotterdam |[pic]|244 |193 |221 |314 |

|[pic] |

|92 |Maine Medical Center |[pic]|159 |158 |169 |604 |

|[pic] |

|93 |Malteser Krankenhaus St Franziskus Hospital |[pic]|46 |47 |183 |1,114 |

|[pic] |

|94 |National Cancer Institute’S Center |[pic]|212 |285 |83 |201 |

|[pic] |

|95 |Allina Hospitals & Clinics |[pic]|98 |218 |234 |427 |

|[pic] |

|95 |Chung Ho Memorial Hospital Kaohsiung Medical University |[pic]|184 |249 |90 |353 |

|[pic] |

|97 |Ohio State University Medical Center |[pic]|115 |46 |684 |557 |

|[pic] |

|98 |Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht |[pic]|187 |283 |215 |141 |

|[pic] |

|99 |Kyushu University Hospital |[pic]|165 |259 |202 |265 |

|[pic] |

|100 |Universitatsklinikum Medizinische Fakultat Der Martin Luther Universitat Halle |[pic]|135 |318 |260 |62 |

| |Wittenberg | | | | | |

|101 |Salud Universitaria Catolica |[pic]|70 |428 |44 |16 |

|[pic] |

|102 |Institut de Recherches Cliniques de Montreal |[pic]|382 |225 |286 |36 |

|[pic] |

|103 |Lifespan Health System |[pic]|22 |273 |75 |579 |

|[pic] |

|104 |Universitatsklinikum Freiburg |[pic]|55 |412 |63 |85 |

|[pic] |

|105 |Intermountain Healthcare |[pic]|286 |226 |173 |303 |

|[pic] |

|106 |California Pacific Medical Center |[pic]|143 |277 |316 |195 |

|[pic] |

|107 |Roswell Park Cancer Institute |[pic]|315 |214 |417 |95 |

|[pic] |

|108 |Medical University of South Carolina |[pic]|102 |87 |1,071 |176 |

|[pic] |

|109 |Stony Brook University Hospital and Health Sciences Center |[pic]|400 |276 |113 |126 |

|[pic] |

|110 |Capital Health, Edmonton Area |[pic]|39 |334 |144 |404 |

|[pic] |

|111 |Long Island Jewish Medical Center |[pic]|53 |330 |184 |360 |

|[pic] |

|112 |Hopitaux Universitaires de Geneve |[pic]|342 |336 |88 |96 |

|[pic] |

|113 |Dokkyo Medical University Hospital |[pic]|38 |341 |224 |353 |

|[pic] |

|114 |University Hospitals of Cleveland |[pic]|30 |267 |300 |557 |

|[pic] |

|115 |Stanford Hospital and Clinics |[pic]|201 |28 |1,008 |427 |

|[pic] |

|116 |St. Jude Children's Research Hospital |[pic]|62 |20 |744 |919 |

|[pic] |

|117 |Vanderbilt Children's Hospital |[pic]|183 |350 |200 |216 |

|[pic] |

|118 |Banner Health |[pic]|91 |272 |147 |684 |

|[pic] |

|119 |Karolinska Institute & University Hospital |[pic]|153 |361 |279 |198 |

|[pic] |

|120 |Department Health & Human Services of Tasmania Royal Hobart Hospital |[pic]|540 |212 |287 |174 |

|[pic] |

|121 |Kyoto University Hospital |[pic]|339 |278 |241 |269 |

|[pic] |

|122 |Care Group Healthcare System |[pic]|75 |417 |137 |264 |

|[pic] |

|123 |Children's Hospital Denver |[pic]|104 |344 |375 |244 |

|[pic] |

|124 |Asan Medical Center Seoul |[pic]|15 |223 |801 |349 |

|[pic] |

|125 |Lifebridge Health |[pic]|141 |286 |94 |684 |

|[pic] |

|126 |Hadassah Medical Organization |[pic]|210 |441 |47 |127 |

|[pic] |

|127 |St. John Health System Warren, Michigan |[pic]|32 |186 |354 |919 |

|[pic] |

|128 |Changhua Christian Hospital |[pic]|160 |469 |125 |63 |

|[pic] |

|129 |Children's Healthcare of Atlanta Pediatric Hospital |[pic]|157 |364 |134 |439 |

|[pic] |

|130 |Rikshospitalet Radiumhosptalet |[pic]|324 |280 |89 |557 |

|[pic] |

|131 |Universitatsklinikum Magdeburg |[pic]|148 |494 |119 |52 |

|[pic] |

|132 |NIH Clinical Center |[pic]|857 |138 |365 |59 |

|[pic] |

|133 |Peacehealth |[pic]|26 |297 |332 |684 |

|[pic] |

|134 |New York Presbyterian Hospital |[pic]|234 |30 |717 |919 |

|[pic] |

|135 |Children's Mercy Hospital and Clinics |[pic]|239 |296 |158 |604 |

|[pic] |

|136 |Sutter Health Hospitals |[pic]|31 |53 |1,263 |604 |

|[pic] |

|137 |Universitair Medisch Centrum St. Radboud |[pic]|132 |512 |26 |179 |

|[pic] |

|138 |Fraser Health |[pic]|424 |309 |250 |245 |

|[pic] |

|139 |Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital |[pic]|227 |467 |96 |146 |

|[pic] |

|140 |Swedish Medical Center, Wa |[pic]|56 |161 |572 |919 |

|[pic] |

|141 |Vancouver Island Health Authority |[pic]|243 |453 |157 |117 |

|[pic] |

|142 |Providence Health System |[pic]|36 |39 |289 |1,643 |

|[pic] |

|143 |Health Sciences Center Shreveport |[pic]|193 |516 |73 |97 |

|[pic] |

|144 |Advocate Health Care |[pic]|120 |300 |258 |736 |

|[pic] |

|145 |Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh |[pic]|233 |130 |999 |416 |

|[pic] |

|146 |Klinikum der Johannes Gutenberg Universitat Mainz |[pic]|321 |384 |269 |183 |

|[pic] |

|147 |Kennedy Krieger Institute |[pic]|274 |324 |452 |274 |

|[pic] |

|148 |Wiener Krankenanstaltenverbund |[pic]|209 |371 |396 |276 |

|[pic] |

|149 |Shriners Hospitals for Children |[pic]|919 |77 |188 |522 |

|[pic] |

|150 |Northwestern Memorial Hospital |[pic]|66 |349 |627 |319 |

|[pic] |

|261 |Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein Albert Einstein Sociedade Beneficente Israelita Brasileira |[pi|685 |551 |594 |13|

| | |c] | | | | |

|[pic] |

|[pic] | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

|852 | | | | | | |

|Hospital de Clinicas Unicamp | | | | | | |

|[pic] | | | | | | |

|2,539 | | | | | | |

|1,163 | | | | | | |

|1,022 | | | | | | |

|303 | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

|[pic] | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

|[pic] |

|910 |Hospital Do Câncer a C Camargo |[pi|2,507 |1,235 |1,470 |84|

| | |c] | | | | |

|[pic] |

|911 |Instituto Do Coração Do Hospital |[pi|2,479 |1,542 |484 |89|

| |Das Clinicas |c] | | | | |

|[pic] |

|912 |St. | | | | | |

Top Latin America

|CONTINENT RANK |HOSPITAL |COUNTRY |WORLD RANK | |

|  |  |  |  | |

|1 |Salud Universitaria Catolica |[pic] |101 | |

|[pic] |

|2 |Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires |[pic] |160 | |

|[pic] |

|3 |Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein Albert Einstein Sociedade |[pic] |261 | |

| |Beneficente Israelita Brasileira | | | |

|[pic] |

|4 |Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina Universidade de São |[pic] |286 | |

| |Paulo | | | |

|[pic] |

|5 |Maternidad Clínica Alemana |[pic] |501 | |

|[pic] |

|6 |Hospital de Clínicas Dr. Manuel Quintela, Hospital Universitario |[pic] |845 | |

|[pic] |

|7 |Hospital de Clinicas Unicamp |[pic] |852 | |

|[pic] |

|8 |Hospital Do Câncer a C Camargo |[pic] |910 | |

|[pic] |

|9 |Instituto Do Coração Do Hospital Das Clinicas |[pic] |911 | |

|[pic] |

|10 |Fundación Favaloro |[pic] |1,053 | |

|[pic] |

|11 |Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre |[pic] |1,057 | |

|[pic] |

|12 |Fleury Medicina E Saúde |[pic] |1,114 | |

|[pic] |

|13 |Rede Sarah de Hospitais de Reabilitação |[pic] |1,186 | |

|[pic] |

|14 |Bermuda Hospitals Board |[pic] |1,284 | |

|[pic] |

|15 |Instituto de Medicina Tropical Pedro Kouri |[pic] |1,324 | |

|[pic] |

|16 |Hospital Luis Carlos Galan Sarmiento |[pic] |1,774 | |

|[pic] |

|17 |Clínica Las Condes |[pic] |1,883 | |

|[pic] |

|18 |Hospital Clinico de La Universidad de Chile |[pic] |1,995 | |

|[pic] |

-----------------------

[1] Disponível em: < >

[2] Disponível em: .

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download