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 *

116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2975283)

  • 1. Quality of care review by the PRO.
    Busby JD
    J Ark Med Soc; 1988 Jul; 85(2):89-94. PubMed ID: 2975283
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Working with the PRO. Foundation for Health Care Evaluation.
    Minn Med; 1989 May; 72(5):287-9. PubMed ID: 2659957
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Changes in PRO review in Missouri to be more evolutionary than revolutionary.
    Jaco D
    Mo Med; 1991 Nov; 88(11):739-42. PubMed ID: 1805125
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. How physicians can avoid problems with the PRO.
    Ponder S
    Colo Med; 1989 Dec; 86(18):387-8. PubMed ID: 2689059
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Pro third scope of work: two major changes.
    Ponder S
    Colo Med; 1989 Nov; 86(17):344-5. PubMed ID: 2680235
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. On changing relations with the PRO or belling the cat.
    Loschen DJ
    Nebr Med J; 1992 Jun; 77(6):119-20. PubMed ID: 1620264
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Utilization and quality control peer review organizations--a rose by any other name . . . ?
    Berg RN
    J Med Assoc Ga; 1982 Nov; 71(11):793-6. PubMed ID: 6890977
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Can you avoid PRO sanctions? Documentation may be the key...
    Edwards KS
    Ohio Med; 1990 Aug; 86(8):578-9. PubMed ID: 2398987
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. You and the PRO.
    Rheney JW
    J S C Med Assoc; 1990 Jul; 86(7):406-10. PubMed ID: 2398739
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. WIPRO clarifies changes to quality review process.
    Wis Med J; 1993 Aug; 92(8):479. PubMed ID: 8237040
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Peer review, hearing requirements, and antitrust: maximizing Federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act compliance and immunity.
    Snelson EA
    J Med Assoc Ga; 1992 Sep; 81(9):495-7. PubMed ID: 1402428
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Peer review shifts focus to patterns of care.
    Carlson B
    Indiana Med; 1994; 87(6):458-61. PubMed ID: 7806858
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Quality Assurance Act could 'watch' HHAs.
    Home Health J; 1986 Mar; 7(3):4, 8. PubMed ID: 10300707
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The ultimate litmus test.
    Moran T
    Tex Med; 1998 Sep; 94(9):41-3. PubMed ID: 9747143
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Physician peer review in New Jersey.
    Dwyer WA
    N J Med; 1989 Feb; 86(2):127-32. PubMed ID: 2710420
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Peer review: indictment, trial and beyond.
    Hudson JD; Ravreby MD
    Iowa Med; 1989 Dec; 79(12):580-2. PubMed ID: 2689389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Medicare program; Peer Review Organizations: new PRO contracts for all states and territories and the District of Columbia--HCFA. Notice.
    Fed Regist; 1993 Mar; 58(39):12042-7. PubMed ID: 10124395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Medical review organizations: a model state immunity statute.
    Kopit WG; Shapiro LE; Eaton KB
    Group Pract; 1980 Apr; 29(4):17-20. PubMed ID: 10273186
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A second opinion on PROS.
    Weissenstein E
    Mod Healthc; 1994 May; 24(19):45-6, 48, 50. PubMed ID: 10133800
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. PRO review: strategies for HMOs.
    Siegel SH; Albritton PM; Thornhill MC
    GHAA J; 1988; 9(1):14-21. PubMed ID: 10302958
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.