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 *

126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2980936)

  • 21. A tale of four cases: Patrick, Bolt, Mitchell, and Oltz.
    Chenen AR
    Med Staff Couns; 1989; 3(2):51-4. PubMed ID: 10292421
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Peer review after Patrick case is alive and well.
    Holthaus D
    Hospitals; 1988 Oct; 62(20):34. PubMed ID: 3169708
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. What competition can do to peer review.
    Holoweiko M
    Med Econ; 1985 Aug; 62(17):122-7, 131-9. PubMed ID: 10278339
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Antitrust and hospital peer review.
    Blumstein JF; Sloan FA
    Law Contemp Probl; 1988; 51(2):7-92. PubMed ID: 10295966
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Peer review: Patrick redux.
    Cohen HH
    Med Staff Couns; 1990; 4(1):59-63. PubMed ID: 10104770
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Antitrust immunity in Colorado peer review actions.
    Earnest GL
    Hosp Law Newsl; 1989 Dec; 7(2):1-5. PubMed ID: 10296371
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Medical staff peer review and federal antitrust scrutiny.
    LaCava FW
    Bull Am Coll Surg; 1985 Aug; 70(8):40-1. PubMed ID: 10272117
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Antitrust law versus peer review.
    Dolin LC
    N Engl J Med; 1985 Oct; 313(18):1156-7. PubMed ID: 4047118
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Court cases testing scope of federal law's peer review immunity.
    Burda D
    Mod Healthc; 1992 Aug; 22(34):80. PubMed ID: 10119842
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Medical staff antitrust decisions examine defenses available to defendants.
    Hosp Law Newsl; 1990 Jun; 7(8):1-6. PubMed ID: 10104849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Courts and Congress shield peer review process from antitrust liability.
    Halper HR
    Bus Health; 1987 Jan; 4(3):59. PubMed ID: 10280004
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Staff privileges and antitrust laws.
    Bernstein AH
    Hospitals; 1982 Sep; 56(17):76-8. PubMed ID: 7095791
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Peer review, privileges: MDs fear legal tangles.
    Koska MT
    Trustee; 1990 Feb; 43(2):19. PubMed ID: 10104264
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Federal laws govern the conduct of peer review.
    Devlin MM
    Am J Med Qual; 1992; 7(3):88-90. PubMed ID: 1493383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The antitrust laws: implications for physician staff privileges.
    Peters ME
    J Health Hum Resour Adm; 1987; 10(2):206-18. PubMed ID: 10286042
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Restraint of trade implications for nurse practitioners: denial of hospital admitting or staff privileges.
    Timmons G; Ridenour N
    J Am Acad Nurse Pract; 1993; 5(4):175-8. PubMed ID: 8398426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. States can't shield peer review from antitrust--high court.
    Burda D
    Mod Healthc; 1988 May; 18(21):5. PubMed ID: 10324515
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. If you should lose a peer review suit.
    Holoweiko M
    Med Econ; 1988 Dec; 65(24):140-4, 147-8, 150-1 passim. PubMed ID: 10290905
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Antitrust law and peer review remain at odds.
    Riffer J
    Hospitals; 1986 Feb; 60(3):58. PubMed ID: 3753695
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Antitrust laws should help NPs.
    Klein CA
    Nurse Pract; 1987 Nov; 12(11):39-40, 45, 48-9. PubMed ID: 3320826
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.