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.
175 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20195191)
1. Evidence and impact: should these articles change the practice of spine care? An evidence-based medicine process. Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2010 Mar; 35(6):E176-7. PubMed ID: 20195191 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Peer review: should we modify our process? Berquist TH AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Mar; 202(3):463-4. PubMed ID: 24555581 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The biopsychosocial approach to spine care and research. Gatchel RJ; Bell G Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2000 Oct; 25(20):2572. PubMed ID: 11034639 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Peer review and the nursing literature. Dougherty MC Nurs Res; 2009; 58(2):73. PubMed ID: 19289927 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. State of literature in foot and ankle. Thordarson DB Foot Ankle Int; 2010 Nov; 31(11):1039-40. PubMed ID: 21197811 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Researchers, authors and reviewers: what are our responsibilities? Kramer MS Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol; 2012 Jul; 26(4):308-9. PubMed ID: 22686381 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. The ARRIVE guidelines: a resource for authors and reviewers to ensure that submissions to The Veterinary Journal meet minimal expectations of completeness, accuracy and transparency. Blomme EA Vet J; 2011 Sep; 189(3):237-8. PubMed ID: 21924210 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Meaningful peer review is integral to quality science and should provide benefits to the authors and reviewers alike. Carrell DT; Rajpert-De Meyts E Andrology; 2013 Jul; 1(4):531-2. PubMed ID: 23785017 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Consider the source. Mason DJ Am J Nurs; 2009 Apr; 109(4):7. PubMed ID: 19325281 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Financial disclosure of reviewers. Parameswaran K Am J Respir Crit Care Med; 2003 Oct; 168(8):1010; author reply 1010. PubMed ID: 14555459 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Evidence-based medicine and the peer review process: complementary or at odds? Fisher CG; Vaccaro AR Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2012 Jan; 37(1):E1-2. PubMed ID: 22179321 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The ATS Journals' policy on image manipulation. Abraham E; Adler KB; Shapiro SD; Leff AR Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol; 2008 Nov; 39(5):499. PubMed ID: 18927351 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Level of evidence in Spine compared to other orthopedic journals. Wupperman R; Davis R; Obremskey WT Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 Feb; 32(3):388-93. PubMed ID: 17268275 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Phantom of the article. Hansen K S D Med; 2009 May; 62(5):191. PubMed ID: 19489342 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Editors and authors: two halves of a whole. Borus JF Acad Psychiatry; 2014 Apr; 38(2):224-5. PubMed ID: 24477900 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Editorial: large database studies--what they can do, what they cannot do, and which ones we will publish. Grauer JN; Leopold SS Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2015 May; 473(5):1537-9. PubMed ID: 25724835 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Letter to the editor: reviewers. Senayli A; Senayli Y Account Res; 2012; 19(4):267-8. PubMed ID: 22861182 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]