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 *

127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11130601)

  • 1. Measuring our words on measurement.
    Froman RD
    Res Nurs Health; 2000 Dec; 23(6):421-3. PubMed ID: 11130601
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Peer review of nursing research proposals.
    Lindquist RD; Tracy MF; Treat-Jacobson D
    Am J Crit Care; 1995 Jan; 4(1):59-65. PubMed ID: 7894558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Evaluating research proposals.
    Feigenbaum K
    Gastroenterol Nurs; 1994 Jun; 16(6):281-2. PubMed ID: 8075166
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Writing a feature article: not all articles are alike.
    Pelletier LR
    Nurse Author Ed; 2003; 13(4):7-8. PubMed ID: 14562512
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Advice for authors. Four principal reasons for manuscript rejection].
    Clarke SP
    Perspect Infirm; 2006; 3(3):35-9. PubMed ID: 16480058
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Consider the source.
    Mason DJ
    Am J Nurs; 2009 Apr; 109(4):7. PubMed ID: 19325281
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Don't send it yet! Getting your manuscript ready to submit.
    Robinson R; Rivers DL
    Nurse Author Ed; 2003; 13(4):1-4. PubMed ID: 14562511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Responding to peer reviews: pointers that authors don't learn in school.
    Algase DL
    Res Theory Nurs Pract; 2008; 22(4):219-21. PubMed ID: 19093658
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The peer review process: some gentle reminders for us all.
    Resnick B
    Geriatr Nurs; 2010; 31(5):321-3. PubMed ID: 20843581
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Kill the ump!
    Haller KB
    J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs; 1994; 23(9):747. PubMed ID: 7853078
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The competitive AASCIN research proposal: tips from reviewers.
    Captain CG; Howell F
    SCI Nurs; 1996 Jun; 13(2):50-2. PubMed ID: 8900709
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Critically evaluating research studies.
    Rogers B
    AAOHN J; 1995 Jan; 43(1):54-5. PubMed ID: 7695808
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Do RAEs accurately measure the quality of nursing research?
    Richards D; Watson R
    Nurs Times; 2002 Oct 15-21; 98(42):17. PubMed ID: 12432659
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Reviewing a manuscript for publication: how do I do this?
    Koop PP
    Can Oncol Nurs J; 1999; 9(3):107-9. PubMed ID: 10703301
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Reviewing peer review: the three reviewers you meet at submission time.
    Clarke SP
    Can J Nurs Res; 2006 Dec; 38(4):5-9. PubMed ID: 17342873
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Writing to get published.
    Wink DM
    Nephrol Nurs J; 2002 Oct; 29(5):461-7. PubMed ID: 12434452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Peer review and the nursing literature.
    Dougherty MC
    Nurs Res; 2009; 58(2):73. PubMed ID: 19289927
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. It's all academic.
    Shelley H
    Nurs Times; 1997 Jan 8-14; 93(2):49. PubMed ID: 9016129
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Publishing your findings.
    King KM; Price PM
    Can J Cardiovasc Nurs; 2003; 13(2):46-8. PubMed ID: 12802838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Thoughts on the end of the article: the implications for nursing practice.
    Becker PT
    Res Nurs Health; 2009 Jun; 32(3):241-2. PubMed ID: 19280621
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.