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 *

138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10291410)

  • 1. High mortality rate alone not evidence of substandard performance.
    Hosp Law Newsl; 1988 Dec; 6(2):1-3. PubMed ID: 10291410
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. How to defend your hospital privileges.
    Chenen AR
    Med Econ; 1991 Nov; 68(21):71, 75-6, 78-9. PubMed ID: 10114582
    [No 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 after Patrick.
    Bierig J
    J Health Hosp Law; 1988 Jun; 21(6):135-9. PubMed ID: 10287912
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Peer review: current law and policy problems.
    Hyman DA
    Healthspan; 1991; 8(7):3-10. PubMed ID: 10114029
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Medical staff peer review and federal antitrust scrutiny.
    LaCava FW
    Bull Am Coll Surg; 1985 Aug; 70(8):40-1. PubMed ID: 10272117
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 8. Professional peer review. Precautions for physicians.
    Struthers MS; Snelson EA
    Minn Med; 1991 Aug; 74(8):27-30. PubMed ID: 1921931
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Antitrust law and the medical staff.
    Holthaus D
    Trustee; 1988 Jul; 41(7):23. PubMed ID: 10288093
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. If you should lose a peer review suit.
    Holoweiko M
    Med Econ; 1988 Dec; 65(24):140-4, 147-8, 150-1 passim. PubMed ID: 10290905
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 12. Medical peer review under legal knife.
    Kosterlitz J
    Natl J (Wash); 1988 Mar; 20(13):820. PubMed ID: 10286588
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. The antitrust laws and the medical peer review process.
    Hammack JM
    J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1993; 9():419-50. PubMed ID: 10126945
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. New peer review law provides immunity with obligations.
    Valiant C
    Physician Exec; 1987; 13(3):26-7. PubMed ID: 10312139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Austin decision good news for peer reviewers.
    Hudson T
    Hospitals; 1993 Jan; 67(2):46-8. PubMed ID: 8419281
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Staff privileges--$2 million antitrust judgment reversed.
    Carlson DR
    Health Law Vigil; 1986 Oct; 9(21):1-4. PubMed ID: 10284024
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.