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 *

231 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2588651)

  • 1. A peer review review.
    Wencel S
    Wis Med J; 1989 Sep; 88(9):27-32, 35. PubMed ID: 2588651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Proposing a manuscript peer-review checklist.
    Duchesne S; Jannin P
    Neuroimage; 2008 Feb; 39(4):1783-7. PubMed ID: 18053748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Quality of care stressed in peer review guidelines.
    Rodkey GV
    QA Rev; 1990 Mar; 2(2):3. PubMed ID: 10113737
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Peer review: federal and state protection.
    Kennedy KE
    Minn Med; 1996 Mar; 79(3):52-4. PubMed ID: 8839070
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. How do peer reviewers of journal articles perform? Evaluating the reviewers with a sham paper.
    Kumar PD
    J Assoc Physicians India; 1999 Feb; 47(2):198-200. PubMed ID: 10999090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.
    Wager E; Parkin EC; Tamber PS
    BMC Med; 2006 May; 4():13. PubMed ID: 16734897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal.
    Snell L; Spencer J
    Med Educ; 2005 Jan; 39(1):90-7. PubMed ID: 15612905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Federal law offers protection for peer review.
    Holthaus D
    Hospitals; 1988 Jul; 62(13):46, 48. PubMed ID: 3384418
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A peer review quality assurance program in drug information.
    Tierney M; Godbout L; Repchinsky C
    Can J Hosp Pharm; 1991 Feb; 44(1):31-4. PubMed ID: 10110041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Peer review to ensure quality in forensic mental health publication.
    Felthous AR; Wettstein RM
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2014; 42(3):305-14. PubMed ID: 25187283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Assurance of process-quality in pulmonary practice by means of a peer-review system--a pilot project].
    Fischer J; Köhler D; Magnussen H
    Pneumologie; 2006 Aug; 60(8):485-92. PubMed ID: 16933192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Reviewing scientific manuscripts: how much statistical knowledge should a reviewer really know?
    Morton JP
    Adv Physiol Educ; 2009 Mar; 33(1):7-9. PubMed ID: 19261753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986: what it means to medical specialty societies.
    Greeson TW; McClure DJ
    Med Staff Couns; 1989; 3(1):15-20. PubMed ID: 10291133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Wisconsin Health Care Review, Inc. A landmark for state health professions.
    Mason PB
    Wis Med J; 1972 Jan; 71(1):3-13. PubMed ID: 5007924
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Court cases testing scope of federal law's peer review immunity.
    Burda D
    Mod Healthc; 1992 Aug; 22(34):80. PubMed ID: 10119842
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Antitrust immunity in Colorado peer review actions.
    Earnest GL
    Hosp Law Newsl; 1989 Dec; 7(2):1-5. PubMed ID: 10296371
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. PL 99-660: improved protections or expensive requirements?
    Simonds G
    Health Prog; 1988 May; 69(4):59-62. PubMed ID: 10287183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Basic philosophy and concepts underlying scientific peer review.
    Stehbens WE
    Med Hypotheses; 1999 Jan; 52(1):31-6. PubMed ID: 10342668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.