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 *

155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27175428)

  • 1. Peer Review Interrater Reliability of Scientific Abstracts: A Study of an Anesthesia Subspecialty Society.
    Cohen IT; Patel K
    J Educ Perioper Med; 2005; 7(2):E035. PubMed ID: 27175428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Reliability of a structured method of selecting abstracts for a plastic surgical scientific meeting.
    van der Steen LP; Hage JJ; Kon M; Mazzola R
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 2003 Jun; 111(7):2215-22. PubMed ID: 12794462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Peer review interrater concordance of scientific abstracts: a study of anesthesiology subspecialty and component societies.
    Cohen IT; Patel K
    Anesth Analg; 2006 May; 102(5):1501-3. PubMed ID: 16632833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Improving participation and interrater agreement in scoring Ambulatory Pediatric Association abstracts. How well have we succeeded?
    Kemper KJ; McCarthy PL; Cicchetti DV
    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med; 1996 Apr; 150(4):380-3. PubMed ID: 8634732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Reviewer agreement in scoring 419 abstracts for scientific orthopedics meetings.
    Poolman RW; Keijser LC; de Waal Malefijt MC; Blankevoort L; Farrokhyar F; Bhandari M;
    Acta Orthop; 2007 Apr; 78(2):278-84. PubMed ID: 17464619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Interrater reliability in grading abstracts for the orthopaedic trauma association.
    Bhandari M; Templeman D; Tornetta P
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2004 Jun; (423):217-21. PubMed ID: 15232452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Inferior reliability of VAS scoring compared with International Society of the Knee reporting system for abstract assessment.
    Rahbek O; Jensen SL; Lind M; Penny JØ; Kallemose T; Jakobsen T; Troelsen A
    Dan Med J; 2017 Apr; 64(4):. PubMed ID: 28385168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Reliability of Peer Review of Abstracts Submitted to Academic Family Medicine Meetings.
    Fenton JJ; Tapp H; Thakur NM; Pfeifle AL
    J Am Board Fam Med; 2020; 33(6):986-991. PubMed ID: 33219077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Impact of blinded versus unblinded abstract review on scientific program content.
    Smith J; Nixon R; Bueschen AJ; Venable DD; Henry HH
    J Urol; 2002 Nov; 168(5):2123-5. PubMed ID: 12394728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. How reliable is peer review of scientific abstracts? Looking back at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.
    Rubin HR; Redelmeier DA; Wu AW; Steinberg EP
    J Gen Intern Med; 1993 May; 8(5):255-8. PubMed ID: 8505684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Can rasch analysis enhance the abstract ranking process in scientific conferences? Issues of interrater variability and abstract rating burden.
    Scanlan JN; Lannin NA; Hoffmann T
    J Contin Educ Health Prof; 2015; 35(1):18-26. PubMed ID: 25799969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Interrater reliability to assure valid content in peer review of CME-accredited presentations.
    Quigg M; Lado FA
    J Contin Educ Health Prof; 2009; 29(4):242-5. PubMed ID: 19998446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Assessment of abstracts submitted to the annual scientific meeting of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists.
    Bydder S; Marion K; Taylor M; Semmens J
    Australas Radiol; 2006 Aug; 50(4):355-9. PubMed ID: 16884423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A comparative study of scientific evaluation of abstracts submitted to the 1995 European Association for the Study of the Liver Copenhagen meeting.
    Vilstrup H; Sørensen HT
    Dan Med Bull; 1998 Jun; 45(3):317-9. PubMed ID: 9675543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Reviewer agreement trends from four years of electronic submissions of conference abstract.
    Rowe BH; Strome TL; Spooner C; Blitz S; Grafstein E; Worster A
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2006 Mar; 6():14. PubMed ID: 16545143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Frequency of manuscript publication following presentation of EMS abstracts at national meetings.
    Clemency BM; Thompson JJ; Lindstrom HA; Gurien S; Jaison BA; Grates-Sciarrino AA
    Prehosp Disaster Med; 2014 Jun; 29(3):294-8. PubMed ID: 24735906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Validity of a structured method of selecting abstracts for a plastic surgical scientific meeting.
    van der Steen LP; Hage JJ; Kon M; Monstrey SJ
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 2004 Jan; 113(1):353-9. PubMed ID: 14707659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Prehospital Application of the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale by Emergency Medical Services.
    Leeies M; Ffrench C; Strome T; Weldon E; Bullard M; Grierson R
    CJEM; 2017 Jan; 19(1):26-31. PubMed ID: 27508353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Publication rate of abstracts presented at the 2010 Canadian Ophthalmological Society Annual Meeting.
    Basilious A; Benavides Vargas AM; Buys YM
    Can J Ophthalmol; 2017 Aug; 52(4):343-348. PubMed ID: 28774514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Development and evaluation of a quality score for abstracts.
    Timmer A; Sutherland LR; Hilsden RJ
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2003 Feb; 3():2. PubMed ID: 12581457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.