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 *

178 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21358778)

  • 1. Cartwright Inquiry correspondence in the NZMJ: enough is enough.
    Frizelle FA
    N Z Med J; 2010 Dec; 123(1327):10. PubMed ID: 21358778
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. What a commentary is for and for whom it is for?
    Clarke L
    J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs; 2008 Oct; 15(8):694. PubMed ID: 18803745
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. PHARMAC welcomes debate.
    Moodie P; McNee W; Metcalfe S
    N Z Med J; 2005 Jul; 118(1218):U1572. PubMed ID: 16027757
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Peer review of NZMJ articles: issues raised after publication of the viewpoint article on Janet Frame.
    Frizelle FA
    N Z Med J; 2007 Oct; 120(1264):U2788; discussion U2787. PubMed ID: 17972995
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Authorship. Credit and disputes.
    Afifi MM
    Saudi Med J; 2004 Nov; 25(11):1742-3. PubMed ID: 15573219
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The importance (and cost) of editorial independence.
    Frizelle F
    N Z Med J; 2006 Mar; 119(1230):U1893. PubMed ID: 16532055
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Bioethics and homeopathy.
    Chadwick R
    Bioethics; 2012 Nov; 26(9):ii. PubMed ID: 23061741
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Misleading nurses.
    Sessa MK
    Am J Nurs; 2011 Jan; 111(1):13. PubMed ID: 21191217
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. New York Times.
    DeFriese GH
    N C Med J; 2005; 66(1):78. PubMed ID: 15786687
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Flap on NEJM board over ethics articles.
    Science; 1997 Oct; 278(5336):211. PubMed ID: 9340764
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. INR and clinical articles: the case of cervical cancer.
    Robinson JJ
    Int Nurs Rev; 2009 Dec; 56(4):403. PubMed ID: 19930063
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Conflicts between professional associations and their journals strike at the heart of professionalism.
    Gottlieb LN
    Can J Nurs Res; 2006 Jun; 38(2):3-6. PubMed ID: 16871845
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Journals under threat: a joint response from history of science, technology and medicine editors.
    Gesnerus; 2009; 66(2):205-8. PubMed ID: 20405769
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A change in the letters to the editor mailbox.
    Ness PM
    Transfusion; 2008 Jul; 48(7):1270. PubMed ID: 18651902
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Lancets unethical behavior.
    Israeli E; Shemer J; Keren G; Shoenfeld Y
    Isr Med Assoc J; 2014 Aug; 16(8):527-8. PubMed ID: 25269352
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Defendants of the Cartwright Inquiry are unable to provide a description of 'adequate care' for cervical carcinoma in situ.
    Chalmers I
    N Z Med J; 2010 Sep; 123(1322):85-7. PubMed ID: 20930897
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Right to a reply].
    Haug C
    Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2007 Mar; 127(6):717. PubMed ID: 17363978
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Why won't defenders of the Cartwright Inquiry provide evidence to justify their use of the term 'conventional treatment' for carcinoma in situ?
    Chalmers I
    N Z Med J; 2010 Jul; 123(1319):109-12. PubMed ID: 20717187
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Save our soul.
    Jeffries D
    Br J Gen Pract; 2003 Nov; 53(496):888. PubMed ID: 15068022
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Research into the Cartwright Inquiry.
    Bryder L
    N Z Med J; 2009 Jan; 122(1288):114-5. PubMed ID: 19182853
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.