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 *

118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2726259)

  • 1. Eight precautions for peer reviewers.
    Pudlin HP
    Pa Med; 1989 Apr; 92(4):34-6. PubMed ID: 2726259
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Peer review/hospital privileges/credentialing.
    Springer EW
    Leg Med; 1994; ():57-81. PubMed ID: 7830486
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Medical staff peer review and federal antitrust scrutiny.
    LaCava FW
    Bull Am Coll Surg; 1985 Aug; 70(8):40-1. PubMed ID: 10272117
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Peer review splits Calif. medical community.
    Burda D
    Mod Healthc; 1988 Oct; 18(44):98. PubMed ID: 10290221
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Peer review, privileges: MDs fear legal tangles.
    Koska MT
    Trustee; 1990 Feb; 43(2):19. PubMed ID: 10104264
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Legal immunity for peer-review programs.
    Pedersen AB
    N Engl J Med; 1989 Jul; 321(4):265. PubMed ID: 2747768
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Liability for peer review and privilege suspension.
    Davis CD
    Tex Hosp; 1984 Jul; 40(2):42. PubMed ID: 10267575
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Idaho Court: peer review immunity statute valid.
    Hattis PA; McCullum JD
    Health Law Vigil; 1987 Nov; 10(24):1-3. PubMed ID: 10284895
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Is this peer review or revenge?
    Cassidy R
    Med Econ; 1981 Mar; 58(6):80-3, 87, 89-91. PubMed ID: 10250276
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Antitrust and hospital peer review.
    Blumstein JF; Sloan FA
    Law Contemp Probl; 1988; 51(2):7-92. PubMed ID: 10295966
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. If you should lose a peer review suit.
    Holoweiko M
    Med Econ; 1988 Dec; 65(24):140-4, 147-8, 150-1 passim. PubMed ID: 10290905
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Peer review in the wake of Patrick.
    McCormick B
    Trustee; 1988 Jul; 41(7):17. PubMed ID: 10288090
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Oregon responds to physicians' fears of peer review.
    Koska MT
    Hospitals; 1990 Jan; 64(1):70-1. PubMed ID: 2294040
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The physician and hospital privileges.
    Hirsch HL
    Leg Med Q; 1981-1983; 5-7():179-91. PubMed ID: 10287959
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comment: Peer review privilege established by Illinois Medical Studies Act does not extend to investigations undertaken by hospital administrations.
    Mustes JJ; Popovits RM
    J Health Hosp Law; 1988 Aug; 21(8):191-4. PubMed ID: 10288421
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Friedman v. Delaware County Memorial Hospital: judicial protection for good-faith peer review.
    Dalton JF
    Healthspan; 1988 Jan; 5(1):18-21. PubMed ID: 10286662
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Peer review after Patrick case is alive and well.
    Holthaus D
    Hospitals; 1988 Oct; 62(20):34. PubMed ID: 3169708
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Medical peer review under legal knife.
    Kosterlitz J
    Natl J (Wash); 1988 Mar; 20(13):820. PubMed ID: 10286588
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The Patrick case: will it hinder peer review?
    Holthaus D
    Hospitals; 1988 Jun; 62(12):56. PubMed ID: 3378770
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Peer review: Patrick redux.
    Cohen HH
    Med Staff Couns; 1990; 4(1):59-63. PubMed ID: 10104770
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.