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 *

63 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11402357)

  • 1. The cost effectiveness of including pencils and erasers with self-completion epidemiological questionnaires.
    Aveyard P; Manaseki S; Griffin C
    Public Health; 2001 Jan; 115(1):80-1. PubMed ID: 11402357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Mailed survey follow-ups--are postcard reminders more cost-effective than second questionnaires?
    Becker H; Cookston J; Kulberg V
    West J Nurs Res; 2000 Aug; 22(5):642-7. PubMed ID: 10943176
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Timing payments to subjects of mail surveys: cost-effectiveness and bias.
    Schweitzer M; Asch DA
    J Clin Epidemiol; 1995 Nov; 48(11):1325-9. PubMed ID: 7490595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Higher monetary incentives led to a lowered response rate in ambulatory patients: a randomized trial.
    Koetsenruijter J; van Lieshout J; Wensing M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Nov; 68(11):1380-2. PubMed ID: 25935299
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Increasing response to mailed questionnaires by including a pencil/pen.
    White E; Carney PA; Kolar AS
    Am J Epidemiol; 2005 Aug; 162(3):261-6. PubMed ID: 15972931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Getting a Valid Survey Response From 662 Plastic Surgeons in the 21st Century.
    Reinisch JF; Yu DC; Li WY
    Ann Plast Surg; 2016 Jan; 76(1):3-5. PubMed ID: 26418779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Computer-assisted self-interviews: a cost effectiveness analysis.
    Brown JL; Vanable PA; Eriksen MD
    Behav Res Methods; 2008 Feb; 40(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 18411521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Hand-held computers in clinical audit: a comparison with established paper and pencil methods.
    Curl M; Robinson D
    Int J Health Care Qual Assur; 1994; 7(3):16-20. PubMed ID: 10136781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Identification and differentiation between colored pencils.
    Hilton O
    Forensic Sci; 1975 Dec; 6(3):221-8. PubMed ID: 1225781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Man Versus Machine: Comparing Double Data Entry and Optical Mark Recognition for Processing CAHPS Survey Data.
    Fifolt M; Blackburn J; Rhodes DJ; Gillespie S; Bennett A; Wolff P; Rucks A
    Qual Manag Health Care; 2017; 26(3):131-135. PubMed ID: 28665903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of medical devices and drugs: are they that different?
    Taylor RS; Iglesias CP
    Value Health; 2009 Jun; 12(4):404-6. PubMed ID: 19138305
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Reagent pencils: a new technique for solvent-free deposition of reagents onto paper-based microfluidic devices.
    Mitchell HT; Noxon IC; Chaplan CA; Carlton SJ; Liu CH; Ganaja KA; Martinez NW; Immoos CE; Costanzo PJ; Martinez AW
    Lab Chip; 2015 May; 15(10):2213-20. PubMed ID: 25851055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Cutting the cost of water.
    Davies P
    Health Estate J; 1997 May; 51(4):15-6. PubMed ID: 10169411
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Measuring the cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of orthodontic care.
    Richmond S; Dunstan F; Phillips C; Daniels C; Durning P; Leahy F
    World J Orthod; 2005; 6(2):161-70. PubMed ID: 15952553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Small scale. Big savings.
    Health Serv J; 2008 Mar; Suppl():9. PubMed ID: 18444294
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Characterization of Reagent Pencils for Deposition of Reagents onto Paper-Based Microfluidic Devices.
    Liu CH; Noxon IC; Cuellar LE; Thraen AL; Immoos CE; Martinez AW; Costanzo PJ
    Micromachines (Basel); 2017 Aug; 8(8):. PubMed ID: 30400433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Market gains, but with some pain.
    Med Device Technol; 1999 Mar; 10(2):81-2. PubMed ID: 10387617
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effect of prize draw incentive on the response rate to a postal survey of obstetricians and gynaecologists: a randomised controlled trial. [ISRCTN32823119].
    Moses SH; Clark TJ
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2004 Jun; 4(1):14. PubMed ID: 15222889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Pressure ulcer prevention versus treatment, comparative product cost study.
    Oot-Giromini B; Bidwell FC; Heller NB; Parks ML; Prebish EM; Wicks P; Williams PM
    Decubitus; 1989 Aug; 2(3):52-4. PubMed ID: 2505808
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Technology in medicine -- ethics, politics and reality.
    Watts JL; Blanchard R; Guyatt G; Miller D; Singer P; Haynes RB; Van Loon R
    Ann R Coll Physicians Surg Can; 1992 Feb; 25(1):51-4. PubMed ID: 11653977
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.