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 *

134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28675192)

  • 1. Tablet computers in assessing performance in a high stakes exam: opinion matters.
    Currie GP; Sinha S; Thomson F; Cleland J; Denison AR
    J R Coll Physicians Edinb; 2017 Jun; 47(2):164-167. PubMed ID: 28675192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Incorporating patient partner scores into high stakes assessment: an observational study into opinions and attitudes.
    Thomson FC; MacKenzie RK; Anderson M; Denison AR; Currie GP
    BMC Med Educ; 2017 Nov; 17(1):214. PubMed ID: 29141624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Paper versus electronic feedback in high stakes assessment.
    Munro AJ; Cumming K; Cleland J; Denison AR; Currie GP
    J R Coll Physicians Edinb; 2018 Jun; 48(2):148-152. PubMed ID: 29992206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The objective structured clinical examination: can physician-examiners participate from a distance?
    Chan J; Humphrey-Murto S; Pugh DM; Su C; Wood T
    Med Educ; 2014 Apr; 48(4):441-50. PubMed ID: 24606627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Electronic acquisition of OSCE performance using tablets.
    Hochlehnert A; Schultz JH; Möltner A; Tımbıl S; Brass K; Jünger J
    GMS Z Med Ausbild; 2015; 32(4):Doc41. PubMed ID: 26483854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Exploring the use of tablet computer-based electronic data capture system to assess patient reported measures among patients with chronic kidney disease: a pilot study.
    Wong D; Cao S; Ford H; Richardson C; Belenko D; Tang E; Ugenti L; Warsmann E; Sissons A; Kulandaivelu Y; Edwards N; Novak M; Li M; Mucsi I
    BMC Nephrol; 2017 Dec; 18(1):356. PubMed ID: 29212466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Tablet computers in the veterinary curriculum.
    Eurell JA; Diamond NA; Buie B; Grant D; Pijanowski GJ
    J Vet Med Educ; 2005; 32(1):113-6. PubMed ID: 15834829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Usability study on two handheld computers to retrieve drug information.
    Letellier S; Leuraud K; Arnaud P; Darmoni SJ
    Stud Health Technol Inform; 2005; 116():322-7. PubMed ID: 16160279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Resident Use of iPad Mini Mobile Devices.
    Niehaus W; Boimbo S; Akuthota V
    PM R; 2015 May; 7(5):512-8. PubMed ID: 25661459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Variables that may enhance medical students' perceived preparedness for computer-based testing.
    Lynch DC; Whitley TW; Emmerling DA; Brinn JE
    J Am Med Inform Assoc; 2000; 7(5):469-74. PubMed ID: 10984466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Usability of tablet computers by people with early-stage dementia.
    Lim FS; Wallace T; Luszcz MA; Reynolds KJ
    Gerontology; 2013; 59(2):174-82. PubMed ID: 23257664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Tablet computer use by medical students in the United States.
    Robinson RL; Burk MS
    J Med Syst; 2013 Aug; 37(4):9959. PubMed ID: 23832806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Usefulness and preference for tablet personal computers by medical students: are the features worth the money?
    Wiese D; Atreja A; Mehta N
    AMIA Annu Symp Proc; 2008 Nov; ():1053. PubMed ID: 18999056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. How we give personalised audio feedback after summative OSCEs.
    Harrison CJ; Molyneux AJ; Blackwell S; Wass VJ
    Med Teach; 2015 Apr; 37(4):323-6. PubMed ID: 24989869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Patient attitudes toward physician use of tablet computers in the exam room.
    Strayer SM; Semler MW; Kington ML; Tanabe KO
    Fam Med; 2010 Oct; 42(9):643-7. PubMed ID: 20927673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Patient difficulty using tablet computers to screen in primary care.
    Hess R; Santucci A; McTigue K; Fischer G; Kapoor W
    J Gen Intern Med; 2008 Apr; 23(4):476-80. PubMed ID: 18373148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Objectivity in subjectivity: do students' self and peer assessments correlate with examiners' subjective and objective assessment in clinical skills? A prospective study.
    Inayah AT; Anwer LA; Shareef MA; Nurhussen A; Alkabbani HM; Alzahrani AA; Obad AS; Zafar M; Afsar NA
    BMJ Open; 2017 May; 7(5):e012289. PubMed ID: 28487454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Senior medical students as peer examiners in an OSCE.
    Burgess A; Clark T; Chapman R; Mellis C
    Med Teach; 2013; 35(1):58-62. PubMed ID: 23102164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Final year MBBS students' perception for observed structured clinical examination.
    Siddiqui FG
    J Coll Physicians Surg Pak; 2013 Jan; 23(1):20-4. PubMed ID: 23286618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Student performance on practical gross anatomy examinations is not affected by assessment modality.
    Meyer AJ; Innes SI; Stomski NJ; Armson AJ
    Anat Sci Educ; 2016; 9(2):111-20. PubMed ID: 25981194
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.