BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

1117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19150263)

  • 1. Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research.
    Henly SJ; Dougherty MC
    Nurs Outlook; 2009; 57(1):18-26. PubMed ID: 19150263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Scientific and statistical reviews of manuscripts submitted to Nursing Research: Comparison of completeness, quality, and usefulness.
    Henly SJ; Bennett JA; Dougherty MC
    Nurs Outlook; 2010; 58(4):188-99. PubMed ID: 20637932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. SQUIRE Guidelines for reporting improvement studies in healthcare: implications for nursing publications.
    Oermann MH
    J Nurs Care Qual; 2009; 24(2):91-5. PubMed ID: 19287244
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Nurse editors' views on the peer review process.
    Kearney MH; Freda MC
    Res Nurs Health; 2005 Dec; 28(6):444-52. PubMed ID: 16287058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Publishing in English-language journals.
    Davis AJ; Tschudin V
    Nurs Ethics; 2007 May; 14(3):425-30. PubMed ID: 17459824
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The art and science of reviewing manuscripts for orthopaedic journals: Part II. Optimizing the manuscript: practical hints for improving the quality of reviews.
    Levine AM; Heckman JD; Hensinger RN
    Instr Course Lect; 2004; 53():689-97. PubMed ID: 15116659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Spine journals: is reviewer agreement on publication recommendations greater than would be expected by chance?
    Weiner BK; Weiner JP; Smith HE
    Spine J; 2010 Mar; 10(3):209-11. PubMed ID: 20207330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection.
    Gupta P; Kaur G; Sharma B; Shah D; Choudhury P
    Indian Pediatr; 2006 Jun; 43(6):479-89. PubMed ID: 16820657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study.
    Alam M; Kim NA; Havey J; Rademaker A; Ratner D; Tregre B; West DP; Coleman WP
    Br J Dermatol; 2011 Sep; 165(3):563-7. PubMed ID: 21623749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals.
    Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH
    J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 18764847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Assessing quality of reports on randomized clinical trials in nursing journals.
    Parent N; Hanley JA
    Can J Cardiovasc Nurs; 2009; 19(2):25-39. PubMed ID: 19517902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Quality science and quality assurance: observations of an environmental scientist.
    Hughes TJ
    Qual Assur; 1999; 7(4):225-35. PubMed ID: 11191123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 14. Online survey of nursing journal peer reviewers: indicators of quality in manuscripts.
    Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH; Baggs JG; Broome M
    West J Nurs Res; 2011 Jun; 33(4):506-21. PubMed ID: 21078915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies.
    Manchikanti L; Datta S; Smith HS; Hirsch JA
    Pain Physician; 2009; 12(5):819-50. PubMed ID: 19787009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Does online submission of manuscripts improve efficiency?
    Govender P; Buckley O; McAuley G; O'Brien J; Torreggiani WC
    JBR-BTR; 2008; 91(6):231-4. PubMed ID: 19202995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors.
    Rivara FP; Cummings P; Ringold S; Bergman AB; Joffe A; Christakis DA
    J Pediatr; 2007 Aug; 151(2):202-5. PubMed ID: 17643779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Does exchanging comments of Indian and non-Indian reviewers improve the quality of manuscript reviews?
    Das Sinha S; Sahni P; Nundy S
    Natl Med J India; 1999; 12(5):210-3. PubMed ID: 10613000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Tips for manuscript reviewers.
    Davidhizar R; Bechtel GA
    Nurse Author Ed; 2003; 13(3):1-4. PubMed ID: 12841086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 56.