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 *

364 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17205666)

  • 21. Hitting the bull's eye rather than shooting yourself between the eyes.
    Froman RD
    Res Nurs Health; 2008 Oct; 31(5):399-401. PubMed ID: 18613067
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Ratings and rankings: judging the evaluation of quality.
    Broome ME
    Nurs Outlook; 2005; 53(5):215-6. PubMed ID: 16226562
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Abandon propaganda! Embrace scholarship!
    Dougherty MC
    Nurs Res; 2010; 59(3):157. PubMed ID: 20445437
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. 'Ding dong the witch is dead!' the demise of the research quality framework.
    Happell B
    Int J Ment Health Nurs; 2008 Apr; 17(2):83-4. PubMed ID: 18307595
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. How to critique a research study.
    Fosbinder D; Loveridge C
    Adv Pract Nurs Q; 1996; 2(3):68-71. PubMed ID: 9447093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Peer reviews show importance of research funding.
    Nurs Stand; 2015 Jan; 29(19):8. PubMed ID: 25563084
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The "so what" question: the impact of nursing research.
    Mitchell PH
    J Prof Nurs; 2004; 20(6):347-8. PubMed ID: 15599866
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The aggressive pursuit of research funding.
    Brinkman A
    Nurs N Z; 2008 Jun; 14(6):2. PubMed ID: 18702407
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. [Result-based financing of medical research].
    Johannessen A; Erik Gilhus N
    Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2009 Mar; 129(7):638-41. PubMed ID: 19337335
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 'Bibliometrics' is flawed.
    Williamson T
    Nurs Times; 2008 Apr 8-14; 104(14):12. PubMed ID: 18497232
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Cutting random funding decisions.
    Graves N; Barnett AG; Clarke P
    Nature; 2011 Jan; 469(7330):299. PubMed ID: 21248827
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. If it's too good to be true, it probably is.
    Kennedy MS
    Am J Nurs; 2009 Dec; 109(12):7. PubMed ID: 19935148
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. New research funding provides opportunities for nursing.
    Duke J
    Nurs N Z; 2004 Nov; 10(10):2. PubMed ID: 19774902
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Encouraging letters to the editor in EMHJ.
    Afifi M
    East Mediterr Health J; 2006 Nov; 12(6):933-4. PubMed ID: 17333846
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Quality evaluation needs some better quality tools.
    Döring TF
    Nature; 2007 Feb; 445(7129):709. PubMed ID: 17301769
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research.
    Mohr WK
    Nurs Outlook; 2009; 57(5):239. PubMed ID: 19789000
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The new realities of grant funding.
    Gottlieb LN
    Can J Nurs Res; 1993; 25(4):9-16. PubMed ID: 10603803
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Publication ethics.
    Hays JC
    Public Health Nurs; 2009; 26(3):205-6. PubMed ID: 19386055
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 19.