These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10273323)

  • 1. Feds' new PROs dismay peer review's fans and foes.
    Frabotta J
    Med World News; 1982 Dec; 23(25):58-60, 65-6, 75, 78. PubMed ID: 10273323
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. PROs shift toward quality as HMO review nears.
    Cotton P
    Med World News; 1986 Dec; 27(24):46-8, 53-9. PubMed ID: 10279842
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Perspectives. PROs: Medicare's paper tigers?
    Mcgraw Hills Med Health; 1988 Nov; 42(44):suppl 4 p.. PubMed ID: 10302877
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A trial of structured implicit review of randomly selected peer review organization cases.
    Burney RE; Gies ME; Williams D; Connolly KW; McKinney MT
    Clin Perform Qual Health Care; 1993; 1(4):214-8. PubMed ID: 10135638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Cost containment and the link to quality.
    VanderVeen LM
    Health Care Strateg Manage; 1988 Jan; 6(1):13-21. PubMed ID: 10286008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. PROs gear up for their changing health care roles. Interview by Jeffrey Finn.
    Webber A
    Hospitals; 1986 Jun; 60(11):82-3. PubMed ID: 3699767
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The new scope of work: what it means to PROs and providers.
    Siegel SH
    Healthc Financ Manage; 1986 Aug; 40(8):64-8. PubMed ID: 10277300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The physicians' peer review program--does it cost more than it saves?
    Demkovich LE
    Natl J (Wash); 1980 May; 12(18):733-6. PubMed ID: 10309147
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Impact of PROs on hospitals and pharmacy practice.
    Black BL
    Am J Hosp Pharm; 1987 Jan; 44(1):77-84. PubMed ID: 3548342
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. New format for federal peer review takes hold.
    Wall MA
    OH; 1983 Feb; 27(2):21. PubMed ID: 10273324
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The evolving scope of PROs. Interview by Jane Stein.
    Weiser RR
    Bus Health; 1987 Nov; 5(1):46-8. PubMed ID: 10284429
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Blizzard of paperwork, new rules are burying PROs and hospitals.
    Baldwin MF; Fackelmann KA
    Mod Healthc; 1986 Jan; 16(1):46-50, 54. PubMed ID: 10300520
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Peer review's data capability is important policing tool.
    Nelson CM
    Va Med; 1987 Jan; 114(1):21-2. PubMed ID: 3825247
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. PROs likely to emerge as the watchdog of new payment system.
    Aronson P; Hellow J
    Rev Fed Am Hosp; 1983; 16(3):50-2. PubMed ID: 10273351
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Hospital utilization review--an essential element in health care cost containment.
    Handel B
    Empl Benefits J; 1984 Sep; 9(3):8-12, 30. PubMed ID: 10273548
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The new economics of PSRO review: an uncertain future.
    Luecke RW; Freeman JK
    Hosp Financ Manage; 1981 Apr; 35(4):56-8, 60, 62. PubMed ID: 10273247
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The relationship between the Professional Standards Review Organizations and the State Health Department.
    McGarvey MR
    Bull N Y Acad Med; 1982; 58(1):114-21. PubMed ID: 7052175
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The evaluation of Professional Standards Review Organizations: their part in the struggle to assure appropriate health care.
    Davis FA
    Bull N Y Acad Med; 1982; 58(1):67-76. PubMed ID: 6810978
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. PSRO: conflict in regulatory goals.
    Rosen HM
    Hosp Health Serv Adm; 1978; 23(4):48-64. PubMed ID: 10308733
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Second guessing: physicians scrutinize peer review's effectiveness.
    Borges W
    Tex Med; 2005 Jan; 101(1):50-3. PubMed ID: 15707091
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.