167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22343028)
21. Pedagogical Merit Review of Animal Use for Education in Canada.
Avey MT; Griffin G
PLoS One; 2016; 11(6):e0158002. PubMed ID: 27352243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. The patient experience of patient-centered communication with nurses in the hospital setting: a qualitative systematic review protocol.
Newell S; Jordan Z
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2015 Jan; 13(1):76-87. PubMed ID: 26447009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Quality management of pharmacology and safety pharmacology studies.
Spindler P; Seiler JP
Fundam Clin Pharmacol; 2002 Apr; 16(2):83-90. PubMed ID: 12031061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. [Shared responsibility in expert review of original articles].
Shashok K
Rev Neurol; 1997 Dec; 25(148):1946-50. PubMed ID: 9528039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Risk management frameworks for human health and environmental risks.
Jardine C; Hrudey S; Shortreed J; Craig L; Krewski D; Furgal C; McColl S
J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev; 2003; 6(6):569-720. PubMed ID: 14698953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Practice standards for quality clinical decision-making in nursing.
Arries E
Curationis; 2006 Mar; 29(1):62-72. PubMed ID: 16817494
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. [A critical review of the "peer review" process].
Alfonso F
Arch Cardiol Mex; 2010; 80(4):272-82. PubMed ID: 21169092
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Conscious sedation guidance.
Coulthard P
Evid Based Dent; 2006; 7(4):90-1. PubMed ID: 17187034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Peer-review for selection of oral presentations for conferences: Are we reliable?
Deveugele M; Silverman J
Patient Educ Couns; 2017 Nov; 100(11):2147-2150. PubMed ID: 28641993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies.
Jefferson T; Rudin M; Brodney Folse S; Davidoff F
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2007 Apr; 2007(2):MR000016. PubMed ID: 17443635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Judging the data: peer review versus Good Laboratory Practice Standards.
Schmidt CW
Environ Health Perspect; 2012 Jul; 120(7):a285. PubMed ID: 22759900
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL EDITORS' VIEWS ON REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE.
Oehrlein EM; Graff JS; Perfetto EM; Mullins CD; Dubois RW; Anyanwu C; Onukwugha E
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2018 Jan; 34(1):111-119. PubMed ID: 29415784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. The GRACE checklist for rating the quality of observational studies of comparative effectiveness: a tale of hope and caution.
Dreyer NA; Velentgas P; Westrich K; Dubois R
J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2014 Mar; 20(3):301-8. PubMed ID: 24564810
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Utilizing Whole Slide Images for the Primary Evaluation and Peer Review of a GLP-Compliant Rodent Toxicology Study.
Jacobsen M; Lewis A; Baily J; Fraser A; Rudmann D; Ryan S
Toxicol Pathol; 2021 Aug; 49(6):1164-1173. PubMed ID: 34060353
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications.
Demicheli V; Di Pietrantonj C
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2007 Apr; 2007(2):MR000003. PubMed ID: 17443627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. A peer review process as part of the implementation of clinical pathways in radiation oncology: Does it improve compliance?
Gebhardt BJ; Heron DE; Beriwal S
Pract Radiat Oncol; 2017; 7(5):332-338. PubMed ID: 28284760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Ensuring quality of in vitro alternative test methods: issues and answers.
Gupta K; Rispin A; Stitzel K; Coecke S; Harbell J
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2005 Dec; 43(3):219-24. PubMed ID: 16099570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
