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.
82 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12222145)
1. The snake still bites. Avery JK Tenn Med; 2002 Sep; 95(9):364-5. PubMed ID: 12222145 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Early error: deadly consequences. Avery JK J Ark Med Soc; 2009 Aug; 106(2):30. PubMed ID: 19715244 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Did we drop the ball? Avery JK Tenn Med; 2009 Jul; 102(7):37. PubMed ID: 19634644 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Again, it is the documentation. Avery JK J Ark Med Soc; 2009 Sep; 106(3):54. PubMed ID: 19947013 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Keep tabs on what you've ordered. Karp D Med Econ; 2006 Dec; 83(24):34. PubMed ID: 17249389 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Missing information equals disaster. Avery JK Tenn Med; 2009 Mar; 102(3):29. PubMed ID: 19354055 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Malpractice issues in radiology. Alliterative errors. Berlin L AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Apr; 174(4):925-31. PubMed ID: 10749224 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Loss prevention case of the month. Inattentive to essential details. Avery JK Tenn Med; 1999 Apr; 92(4):132-3. PubMed ID: 10194979 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. When is it malpractice to miss lung cancer on chest radiographs? Potchen EJ; Bisesi MA Radiology; 1990 Apr; 175(1):29-32. PubMed ID: 2179991 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Errors in judgment. Berlin L AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1996 Jun; 166(6):1259-61. PubMed ID: 8633426 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Vicarious liability. Berlin L AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1997 Sep; 169(3):621-4. PubMed ID: 9275865 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Communication of the significant but not urgent finding. Berlin L AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1997 Feb; 168(2):329-31. PubMed ID: 9016199 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Cancer nursing and the law: valuing the missed opportunity for treatment. The James case. Gargaro WJ Cancer Nurs; 1982 Feb; 5(1):65-6. PubMed ID: 6279278 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparing new radiographs with those obtained previously. Berlin L AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1999 Jan; 172(1):3-6. PubMed ID: 9888727 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Malpractice issues in radiology. Teleradiology. Berlin L AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Jun; 170(6):1417-22. PubMed ID: 9609146 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Must new radiographs be compared with all previous radiographs, or only with the most recently obtained radiographs? Berlin L AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Mar; 174(3):611-5. PubMed ID: 10701597 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. [My way to diagnosis]. Brekke KA Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2001 Jan; 121(2):231. PubMed ID: 11475212 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. The disaster of a suspected coverup. Avery JK Tenn Med; 2001 Mar; 94(3):87-8. PubMed ID: 11242753 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Malpractice issues in radiology. American College of Radiology Standard for Communication. Cascade PN; Berlin L AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1999 Dec; 173(6):1439-42. PubMed ID: 10584778 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]