BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

231 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29410308)

  • 1. What provides a better value for your time? The use of relative value units to compare posterior segmental instrumentation of vertebral segments.
    Orr RD; Sodhi N; Dalton SE; Khlopas A; Sultan AA; Chughtai M; Newman JM; Savage J; Mroz TE; Mont MA
    Spine J; 2018 Oct; 18(10):1727-1732. PubMed ID: 29410308
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Are We Appropriately Compensated by Relative Value Units for Primary vs Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty?
    Sodhi N; Piuzzi NS; Khlopas A; Newman JM; Kryzak TJ; Stearns KL; Mont MA
    J Arthroplasty; 2018 Feb; 33(2):340-344. PubMed ID: 28993077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A Comparison of Relative Value Units in Primary Versus Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.
    Peterson J; Sodhi N; Khlopas A; Piuzzi NS; Newman JM; Sultan AA; Stearns KL; Mont MA
    J Arthroplasty; 2018 Jul; 33(7S):S39-S42. PubMed ID: 29276122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of a Posterior versus Anterior Approach for Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery Based on Relative Value Units.
    Sodhi N; Patel Y; Berger RJ; Newman JM; Anis HK; Ehiorobo JO; Khlopas A; Desai R; Hollern DA; Schwartz JM; Paulino CB; Mont MA
    Surg Technol Int; 2019 Nov; 35():363-368. PubMed ID: 31373381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Association of Neurosurgical Work Relative Value Units with Objective Markers of Operative Complexity.
    Chiu RG; Siddiqui N; Nunna RS; Patel S; Rosinski CL; Chaker AN; Hobbs JG; Mehta AI
    World Neurosurg; 2021 Feb; 146():e194-e204. PubMed ID: 33091644
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A Comparison of Relative Value Units in Primary versus Revision Total Ankle Arthroplasty.
    Sodhi N; Yao B; Newman JM; Jawad M; Khlopas A; Sultan AA; Lamaj S; Beyer GA; Wilhelm AB; Mont MA
    Surg Technol Int; 2017 Dec; 31():322-326. PubMed ID: 29316589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Work Relative Value Units Do Not Adequately Support the Burden of Infection Management in Revision Knee Arthroplasty.
    Samuel LT; Grits D; Acuña AJ; Piuzzi NS; Higuera-Rueda CA; Kamath AF
    J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2020 Feb; 102(3):230-236. PubMed ID: 31609889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Not all primary total hip arthroplasties are equal-so is there a difference in reimbursement?
    Sodhi N; Dalton SE; Garbarino LJ; Gold PA; Piuzzi NS; Newman JM; Khlopas A; Sultan AA; Chughtai M; Mont MA
    Ann Transl Med; 2019 Feb; 7(4):74. PubMed ID: 30963069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Correlation of Relative Value Units With Surgical Complexity and Physician Workload in Urology.
    Gan ZS; Wood CM; Hayon S; Deal A; Smith AB; Tan HJ; Pruthi RS
    Urology; 2020 May; 139():71-77. PubMed ID: 32084413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Cost Analysis of Conversion Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Multi-Institutional Database Study.
    Denyer S; Eikani C; Bujnowski D; Farooq H; Brown N
    J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2023 Mar; 105(6):462-467. PubMed ID: 36727914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Discrepancies Created by Surgeon Self-Reported Operative Time and the Effects on Procedural Relative Value Units and Reimbursement.
    Uppal S; Rice LW; Spencer RJ
    Obstet Gynecol; 2021 Aug; 138(2):182-188. PubMed ID: 34237766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Are Joint Surgeons Being Adequately Compensated for Single-Component versus Double-Component Revision TKA? An Analysis of Relative Value Units.
    Malik AT; Scharschmidt TJ; Li M; Jain N; Khan SN
    J Knee Surg; 2020 Jun; 33(6):593-596. PubMed ID: 30861538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Reimbursement for Female-Specific Compared With Male-Specific Procedures Over Time.
    Polan RM; Barber EL
    Obstet Gynecol; 2021 Dec; 138(6):878-883. PubMed ID: 34736273
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Correlation between Relative Value Units and Operative Time for Flap-Based Reconstruction Procedures.
    Dibbs RP; Skochdopole A; Reul RM; Beh HZ; Ferry AM; Conlon CJ; O'Neill R; Reece E; Winocour S
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 2023 Feb; 151(2):299e-307e. PubMed ID: 36696331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Barriers to Revision Total Hip Service Lines: A Surgeon's Perspective Through a Deterministic Financial Model.
    Feng JE; Anoushiravani AA; Schoof LH; Gabor JA; Padilla J; Slover J; Schwarzkopf R
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2020 Jul; 478(7):1657-1666. PubMed ID: 32574471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Trends in reimbursement for primary and revision total elbow arthroplasty.
    Sugarman BS; Belay ES; Saltzman EB; Richard MJ; Ruch DS; Anakwenze OA; Klifto CS
    J Shoulder Elbow Surg; 2021 Jan; 30(1):146-150. PubMed ID: 32610075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Reimbursement for Hip Fractures: The Impact of Varied Current Procedural Terminology Coding Using Relative Value Units.
    Beck CM; Blair SE; Nana AD
    J Arthroplasty; 2020 Dec; 35(12):3464-3466. PubMed ID: 32741709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. National Undervaluation of Cleft Surgical Services: Evidence from a Comparative Analysis of 50,450 Cases.
    Rochlin DH; Chaya BF; Flores RL
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 2023 Mar; 151(3):603-610. PubMed ID: 36730532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Does complexity relate to compensation? A comparison of relative value units in initial versus recurrent inguinal hernia repair.
    Doval AF; Nguyen-Lee JJ; Beal LL; Zheng F; Echo A
    Hernia; 2020 Apr; 24(2):245-250. PubMed ID: 31401726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. CPT to RVU conversion improves model performance in the prediction of surgical case length.
    Garside N; Zaribafzadeh H; Henao R; Chung R; Buckland D
    Sci Rep; 2021 Jul; 11(1):14169. PubMed ID: 34239005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.