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 *

361 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10289700)

  • 1. Impact of Patrick v Burget.
    JCAH Perspect; 1986; 6(7-8):7-9. PubMed ID: 10289700
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The impact of Patrick v. Burget on peer review.
    Gainer PS; Miles JJ
    Med Staff Couns; 1988; 2(4):13-21. PubMed ID: 10290181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Perspectives. The Patrick case: implications for peer review.
    Mcgraw Hills Med Health; 1988 May; 42(22):suppl 4 p.. PubMed ID: 10287491
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Peer review immunity after Patrick v. Burget.
    Kelly JP
    Healthspan; 1988 Jun; 5(6):2-5. PubMed ID: 10288658
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. High court's override on Patrick renews concerns about peer review risk.
    Halper HR; Kazon PM
    Bus Health; 1988 Jul; 5(9):40-1. PubMed ID: 10288490
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Patrick v. Burget; will the state action doctrine protect bad faith peer review?
    Healthspan; 1988 Feb; 5(2):20-2. PubMed ID: 10288650
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A tale of four cases: Patrick, Bolt, Mitchell, and Oltz.
    Chenen AR
    Med Staff Couns; 1989; 3(2):51-4. PubMed ID: 10292421
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. What competition can do to peer review.
    Holoweiko M
    Med Econ; 1985 Aug; 62(17):122-7, 131-9. PubMed ID: 10278339
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Patrick v. Burget: impact on rural peer review activities.
    Kadzielski MA
    Health Prog; 1988 Sep; 69(7):16, 18. PubMed ID: 10288930
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Courts and Congress shield peer review process from antitrust liability.
    Halper HR
    Bus Health; 1987 Jan; 4(3):59. PubMed ID: 10280004
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Antitrust. Is quality review in jeopardy?
    Pollner F
    Med World News; 1988 Jun; 29(12):34-6, 38, 43-7. PubMed ID: 10287973
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Eleventh Circuit allows state action defense in medical staff antitrust case.
    Miller RD
    Hosp Law Newsl; 1989 Jan; 6(3):1-5. PubMed ID: 10292016
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Peer review in the wake of Patrick.
    McCormick B
    Trustee; 1988 Jul; 41(7):17. PubMed ID: 10288090
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Antitrust and hospital peer review.
    Blumstein JF; Sloan FA
    Law Contemp Probl; 1988; 51(2):7-92. PubMed ID: 10295966
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Peer review after Patrick case is alive and well.
    Holthaus D
    Hospitals; 1988 Oct; 62(20):34. PubMed ID: 3169708
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The value of external peer review after the Health Care Quality Improvement Act and Patrick v. Burget.
    Couch JB; Kauffman A; Merry M
    Qual Assur Util Rev; 1989 Aug; 4(3):86-8. PubMed ID: 2535582
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The Patrick case: will it hinder peer review?
    Holthaus D
    Hospitals; 1988 Jun; 62(12):56. PubMed ID: 3378770
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Peer review after Patrick.
    Bierig J
    J Health Hosp Law; 1988 Jun; 21(6):135-9. PubMed ID: 10287912
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Supreme Court decides Patrick; peer review alive and well despite ruling.
    Christensen JD
    Health Law Vigil; 1988 Jun; 11(13):1-5. PubMed ID: 10287418
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Avoiding antitrust pitfalls in peer assistance programs.
    Hammaker MK
    J Am Health Care Assoc; 1985 Sep; 11(5):51-2. PubMed ID: 10272795
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 19.