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 *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2747768)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Legal immunity for medical peer-review programs. New policies explored.
    Curran WJ
    N Engl J Med; 1989 Jan; 320(4):233-5. PubMed ID: 2783210
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 4. Peer review, privileges: MDs fear legal tangles.
    Koska MT
    Hospitals; 1989 Dec; 63(23):28-9, 31, 33. PubMed ID: 2583696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

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

  • 7. New peer review law provides immunity with obligations.
    Valiant C
    Physician Exec; 1987; 13(3):26-7. PubMed ID: 10312139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Peer review immunity after Patrick v. Burget.
    Kelly JP
    Healthspan; 1988 Jun; 5(6):2-5. PubMed ID: 10288658
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Medical staff privileges and the antitrust laws: does the Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine apply?
    Meghrigian AG
    Med Staff Couns; 1992; 6(2):9-16. PubMed ID: 10116795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

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

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

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

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Peer review: Patrick redux.
    Cohen HH
    Med Staff Couns; 1990; 4(1):59-63. PubMed ID: 10104770
    [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. Staff privileges--$2 million antitrust judgment reversed.
    Carlson DR
    Health Law Vigil; 1986 Oct; 9(21):1-4. PubMed ID: 10284024
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.