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 *

104 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29333239)

  • 1. The peer review process for awarding funds to international science research consortia: a qualitative developmental evaluation.
    Gregorius S; Dean L; Cole DC; Bates I
    F1000Res; 2017; 6():1808. PubMed ID: 29333239
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 'Are you siding with a personality or the grant proposal?': observations on how peer review panels function.
    Coveney J; Herbert DL; Hill K; Mow KE; Graves N; Barnett A
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2017; 2():19. PubMed ID: 29451548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Science peer review for the 21st century: Assessing scientific consensus for decision-making while managing conflict of interests, reviewer and process bias.
    Kirman CR; Simon TW; Hays SM
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2019 Apr; 103():73-85. PubMed ID: 30634024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. How do NIHR peer review panels use bibliometric information to support their decisions?
    Gunashekar S; Wooding S; Guthrie S
    Scientometrics; 2017; 112(3):1813-1835. PubMed ID: 28804180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?
    Guthrie S; Ghiga I; Wooding S
    F1000Res; 2017; 6():1335. PubMed ID: 29707193
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The Delphi process: a solution for reviewing novel grant applications.
    Holliday C; Robotin M
    Int J Gen Med; 2010 Aug; 3():225-30. PubMed ID: 20830198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Peer review of grant applications: criteria used and qualitative study of reviewer practices.
    Abdoul H; Perrey C; Amiel P; Tubach F; Gottot S; Durand-Zaleski I; Alberti C
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(9):e46054. PubMed ID: 23029386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications.
    Pier EL; Brauer M; Filut A; Kaatz A; Raclaw J; Nathan MJ; Ford CE; Carnes M
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2018 Mar; 115(12):2952-2957. PubMed ID: 29507248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Evaluation of stakeholder views on peer review of NIHR applications for funding: a qualitative study.
    Turner S; Bull A; Chinnery F; Hinks J; Mcardle N; Moran R; Payne H; Woodford Guegan E; Worswick L; Wyatt JC
    BMJ Open; 2018 Dec; 8(12):e022548. PubMed ID: 30552252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 'Your comments are meaner than your score': score calibration talk influences intra- and inter-panel variability during scientific grant peer review.
    Pier EL; Raclaw J; Kaatz A; Brauer M; Carnes M; Nathan MJ; Ford CE
    Res Eval; 2017 Jan; 26(1):1-14. PubMed ID: 28458466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.
    Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
    Eur J Health Econ; 2008 Nov; 9 Suppl 1():5-29. PubMed ID: 18987905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Recommendations from the international evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome.
    Teede HJ; Misso ML; Costello MF; Dokras A; Laven J; Moran L; Piltonen T; Norman RJ;
    Fertil Steril; 2018 Aug; 110(3):364-379. PubMed ID: 30033227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Recommendations from the international evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome.
    Teede HJ; Misso ML; Costello MF; Dokras A; Laven J; Moran L; Piltonen T; Norman RJ;
    Hum Reprod; 2018 Sep; 33(9):1602-1618. PubMed ID: 30052961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany].
    Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
    Dtsch Med Wochenschr; 2008 Dec; 133 Suppl 7():S225-46. PubMed ID: 19034813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Studying grant decision-making: a linguistic analysis of review reports.
    van den Besselaar P; Sandström U; Schiffbaenker H
    Scientometrics; 2018; 117(1):313-329. PubMed ID: 30220747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Using simplified peer review processes to fund research: a prospective study.
    Herbert DL; Graves N; Clarke P; Barnett AG
    BMJ Open; 2015 Jul; 5(7):e008380. PubMed ID: 26137884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Panel discussion does not improve reliability of peer review for medical research grant proposals.
    Fogelholm M; Leppinen S; Auvinen A; Raitanen J; Nuutinen A; Väänänen K
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Jan; 65(1):47-52. PubMed ID: 21831594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. International guidelines for groin hernia management.
    HerniaSurge Group
    Hernia; 2018 Feb; 22(1):1-165. PubMed ID: 29330835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. How international research consortia can strengthen organisations' research systems and promote a conducive environment and culture.
    Pulford J; El Hajj T; Tancred T; Ding Y; Crossman S; Silvester L; Savio M; Bevan N; Tagoe N; Bates I
    BMJ Glob Health; 2023 Apr; 8(4):. PubMed ID: 37028811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: qualitative study and methodological review.
    Chilcott J; Tappenden P; Rawdin A; Johnson M; Kaltenthaler E; Paisley S; Papaioannou D; Shippam A
    Health Technol Assess; 2010 May; 14(25):iii-iv, ix-xii, 1-107. PubMed ID: 20501062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.