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.
108 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 251431)
21. Professional standards review organizations: the current scene. Sullivan FW Am J Psychiatry; 1974 Dec; 131(12):1354-8. PubMed ID: 4473905 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Providers question PROs' effectiveness. Critics contend peer review organizations are too costly and fail to improve the quality of care. Rothschild RD Health Prog; 1992; 73(6):28-32, 38. PubMed ID: 10119535 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Peer review. Ramphal M Am J Nurs; 1974 Jan; 74(1):63-7. PubMed ID: 4491941 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. American Medical Association policy of Professional Standards Review Organizations as amended and adopted by the House of Delegates, December, 1973. Conn Med; 1974 Feb; 38(2):71-2. PubMed ID: 4856002 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Prepayment and the component society. Lentchner J Okla State Dent Assoc; 1975 Oct; 66(2):25-9. PubMed ID: 1072628 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. AMA/ACHS Peer Review Resource Centre strategy for 1984. Aust Clin Rev; 1984 Mar; (11):6-14. PubMed ID: 6541471 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Winning with medical review. Beaird L Tex Med; 1987 Nov; 83(11):44-7. PubMed ID: 3424229 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. The National League for Nursing Accreditation Commission peer evaluation panel. Davidhizar R ABNF J; 1998; 9(3):69-70. PubMed ID: 9677870 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Health-services information systems in the United States today. Murnaghan JH N Engl J Med; 1974 Mar; 290(11):603-10. PubMed ID: 4359965 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Identifying problems. A position paper of the AMA/ACHS Peer Review Resource Centre. Aust Clin Rev; 1984 Mar; (11):20-2. PubMed ID: 6541470 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. [Peer review. I. A review of the American literature]. Stevens EC; Eijkman MA Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 1983 Nov; 90(11):540-4. PubMed ID: 6366592 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Guidelines for review of nursing care at the local level. ANA Publ; 1976; (NP-54):iii-x, 1-126. PubMed ID: 1051308 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Professional Standards Review Organizations (PSROs). II. Developing professional standards review in dietetics. Hansen SG J Am Diet Assoc; 1974 Dec; 65(6):656-8. PubMed ID: 4475054 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Editorial: On peering peers. Gray DE J Kans Med Soc; 1974 Feb; 75(2):48-9. PubMed ID: 4856066 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. How to overcome barriers to effective audit. Barnes RH Hosp Med Staff; 1976 May; 5(5):1-6. PubMed ID: 1035591 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. PSRO referendum to be conducted. J Okla State Med Assoc; 1973 Mar; 66(3):122-5. PubMed ID: 4734706 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Peer review: a review of the literature on the American experience 1972-1982. Kosky R Aust N Z J Psychiatry; 1984 Mar; 18(1):64-9. PubMed ID: 6380483 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Interview with Dr. Robert Kelly, Chairman of the AMA Delegation from Minnesota. Minn Med; 1978 Jan; 61(1):43-53. PubMed ID: 579647 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]