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: 29451548)

  • 1. '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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Recommendations from the 2023 International Evidence-based Guideline for the Assessment and Management of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome.
    Teede HJ; Tay CT; Laven J; Dokras A; Moran LJ; Piltonen TT; Costello MF; Boivin J; M Redman L; A Boyle J; Norman RJ; Mousa A; Joham AE;
    Fertil Steril; 2023 Oct; 120(4):767-793. PubMed ID: 37589624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Recommendations From the 2023 International Evidence-based Guideline for the Assessment and Management of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome.
    Teede HJ; Tay CT; Laven JJE; Dokras A; Moran LJ; Piltonen TT; Costello MF; Boivin J; Redman LM; Boyle JA; Norman RJ; Mousa A; Joham AE
    J Clin Endocrinol Metab; 2023 Sep; 108(10):2447-2469. PubMed ID: 37580314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Recommendations from the 2023 International Evidence-based Guideline for the Assessment and Management of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome†.
    Teede HJ; Tay CT; Laven J; Dokras A; Moran LJ; Piltonen TT; Costello MF; Boivin J; Redman LM; Boyle JA; Norman RJ; Mousa A; Joham AE;
    Hum Reprod; 2023 Sep; 38(9):1655-1679. PubMed ID: 37580037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Ponderings on peer review: Part 3. Grant critiques.
    Seals DR
    Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol; 2023 Nov; 325(5):R604-R618. PubMed ID: 37720995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Is peer review useful in assessing research proposals in Indigenous health? A case study.
    Street J; Baum F; Anderson IP
    Health Res Policy Syst; 2009 Feb; 7():2. PubMed ID: 19216770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Streamlined research funding using short proposals and accelerated peer review: an observational study.
    Barnett AG; Herbert DL; Campbell M; Daly N; Roberts JA; Mudge A; Graves N
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2015 Feb; 15():55. PubMed ID: 25888975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel.
    Graves N; Barnett AG; Clarke P
    BMJ; 2011 Sep; 343():d4797. PubMed ID: 21951756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications.
    Demicheli V; Di Pietrantonj C
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2007 Apr; 2007(2):MR000003. PubMed ID: 17443627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers.
    Herbert DL; Barnett AG; Clarke P; Graves N
    BMJ Open; 2013 May; 3(5):. PubMed ID: 23793700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Non-financial conflicts of interest in academic grant evaluation: a qualitative study of multiple stakeholders in France.
    Abdoul H; Perrey C; Tubach F; Amiel P; Durand-Zaleski I; Alberti C
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(4):e35247. PubMed ID: 22496913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Involving Patient Partners in the KRESCENT Peer Review: Intent, Process, Challenges, and Opportunities.
    Fowler EA; Bell K; Burns K; Chiazzese A; DeSerres SA; Foster BJ; Hartwig S; Herrington G; James MT; Jensen V; Jones N; Kidston S; Lemay S; Levin A; MacPhee A; McCutcheon S; Ravani P; Samuel S; Scholey J; Takano T; Tangri N; Verdin N; Alexander RT; Clase CM
    Can J Kidney Health Dis; 2022; 9():20543581221136402. PubMed ID: 36406869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. '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]  

  • 17. How Do I Review Thee? Let Me Count the Ways: A Comparison of Research Grant Proposal Review Criteria Across US Federal Funding Agencies.
    Falk-Krzesinski HJ; Tobin SC
    J Res Adm; 2015; 46(2):79-94. PubMed ID: 27274713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.