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 *

190 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16609089)

  • 1. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance.
    Ross JS; Gross CP; Desai MM; Hong Y; Grant AO; Daniels SR; Hachinski VC; Gibbons RJ; Gardner TJ; Krumholz HM
    JAMA; 2006 Apr; 295(14):1675-80. PubMed ID: 16609089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting.
    Callaham ML; Wears RL; Weber EJ; Barton C; Young G
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):254-7. PubMed ID: 9676673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Factors associated with acceptance and full publication of GI endoscopic research originally published in abstract form.
    Eloubeidi MA; Wade SB; Provenzale D
    Gastrointest Endosc; 2001 Mar; 53(3):275-82. PubMed ID: 11231383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Impact of blinded versus unblinded abstract review on scientific program content.
    Smith J; Nixon R; Bueschen AJ; Venable DD; Henry HH
    J Urol; 2002 Nov; 168(5):2123-5. PubMed ID: 12394728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Reviewer agreement in scoring 419 abstracts for scientific orthopedics meetings.
    Poolman RW; Keijser LC; de Waal Malefijt MC; Blankevoort L; Farrokhyar F; Bhandari M;
    Acta Orthop; 2007 Apr; 78(2):278-84. PubMed ID: 17464619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Higher acceptance rates for abstracts written in English at a national research student meeting in a non-English speaking country.
    Khani A; Zarghami A; Izadpanah F; Mahdizadeh H; Golestanifar L
    Educ Health (Abingdon); 2015; 28(2):142-4. PubMed ID: 26609015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Abstract acceptance and blinded peer review.
    Falagas ME
    JAMA; 2006 Sep; 296(10):1230; author reply 1230-1. PubMed ID: 16968842
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting: why investigators fail to publish.
    Weber EJ; Callaham ML; Wears RL; Barton C; Young G
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):257-9. PubMed ID: 9676674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The influence of industry sponsorship on the acceptance of abstracts and their publication.
    McLennan M; Leong FC; Steele A; Harris J
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2008 May; 198(5):579.e1-4. PubMed ID: 18455539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Assessment of abstracts submitted for the 1998 BNMS annual meeting: concordance or lottery?
    Kemp PM; Goddard JR
    Nucl Med Commun; 1999 Feb; 20(2):195-8. PubMed ID: 10088171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of outcomes and other variables between conference abstracts and subsequent peer-reviewed papers involving pre-harvest or abattoir-level interventions against foodborne pathogens.
    Snedeker KG; Campbell M; Totton SC; Guthrie A; Sargeant JM
    Prev Vet Med; 2010 Nov; 97(2):67-76. PubMed ID: 20739075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Factors associated with converting scientific abstracts to published manuscripts.
    Smart RJ; Susarla SM; Kaban LB; Dodson TB
    J Craniofac Surg; 2013 Jan; 24(1):66-70. PubMed ID: 23348257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. What is the fate of the abstracts submitted at the French Congress of Digestive and Hepato-biliary Surgery?
    Cauchy F; Benoist S; Gaujoux S; Régimbeau JM; Mariette C; Fuks D
    J Visc Surg; 2014 Jun; 151(3):175-82. PubMed ID: 24861940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Reliability of a structured method of selecting abstracts for a plastic surgical scientific meeting.
    van der Steen LP; Hage JJ; Kon M; Mazzola R
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 2003 Jun; 111(7):2215-22. PubMed ID: 12794462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The fate of research abstracts submitted to a national surgical conference: a cross-sectional study to assess scientific impact.
    de Meijer VE; Knops SP; van Dongen JA; Eyck BM; Vles WJ
    Am J Surg; 2016 Jan; 211(1):166-71. PubMed ID: 26349584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions.
    Garfunkel JM; Ulshen MH; Hamrick HJ; Lawson EE
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):137-8. PubMed ID: 8015125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Determinants of abstract acceptance for the Digestive Diseases Week--a cross sectional study.
    Timmer A; Hilsden RJ; Sutherland LR
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2001; 1():13. PubMed ID: 11801192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Rebound peer review: a viable recourse for aggrieved authors?
    Sen CK
    Antioxid Redox Signal; 2012 Feb; 16(4):293-6. PubMed ID: 22098370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Conversion of cardiovascular conference abstracts to publications.
    Fosbøl EL; Fosbøl PL; Harrington RA; Eapen ZJ; Peterson ED
    Circulation; 2012 Dec; 126(24):2819-25. PubMed ID: 23124031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. How reliable is peer review of scientific abstracts? Looking back at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.
    Rubin HR; Redelmeier DA; Wu AW; Steinberg EP
    J Gen Intern Med; 1993 May; 8(5):255-8. PubMed ID: 8505684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.