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 *

293 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31542741)

  • 1. Training patients to review scientific reports for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: an observational study.
    Ivlev I; Vander Ley KJ; Wiedrick J; Lesley K; Forester A; Webb R; Broitman M; Eden KB
    BMJ Open; 2019 Sep; 9(9):e028732. PubMed ID: 31542741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Researchers, Patients, and Stakeholders Evaluating Comparative-Effectiveness Research: A Mixed-Methods Study of the PCORI Reviewer Experience.
    Forsythe LP; Frank LB; Hemphill R; Tafari AT; Szydlowski V; Lauer M; Goertz C; Clauser S
    Value Health; 2018 Oct; 21(10):1161-1167. PubMed ID: 30314616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Unique Review Criteria and Patient and Stakeholder Reviewers: Analysis of PCORI's Approach to Research Funding.
    Forsythe LP; Frank LB; Tafari AT; Cohen SS; Lauer M; Clauser S; Goertz C; Schrandt S
    Value Health; 2018 Oct; 21(10):1152-1160. PubMed ID: 30314615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviewers.
    Callaham ML; Schriger DL
    Ann Emerg Med; 2002 Sep; 40(3):323-8. PubMed ID: 12192358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The effectiveness of internet-based e-learning on clinician behavior and patient outcomes: a systematic review protocol.
    Sinclair P; Kable A; Levett-Jones T
    JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2015 Jan; 13(1):52-64. PubMed ID: 26447007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Peer review reduces spin in PCORI research reports.
    Mayo-Wilson E; Phillips ML; Connor AE; Vander Ley KJ; Naaman K; Helfand M
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2021 Dec; 6(1):16. PubMed ID: 34847946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Engaging patients and stakeholders in research proposal review: the patient-centered outcomes research institute.
    Fleurence RL; Forsythe LP; Lauer M; Rotter J; Ioannidis JP; Beal A; Frank L; Selby JV
    Ann Intern Med; 2014 Jul; 161(2):122-30. PubMed ID: 25023251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Patient and caregiver engagement in the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Health Care Horizon Scanning System (HCHSS) process.
    Tipton K; De Lurio J; Erinoff E; Hulshizer R; Robertson D; Beales D; Carlson D; Cuevas C; DeHaan E; Druga A; Lynch M; Mehta M; Middleton M; Wilkinson B; Schoelles K
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2020 Dec; 37():e13. PubMed ID: 33317651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [The peer-review process: critical issues and challenges from an online survey].
    Moirano G; Listorti E; Asta F; Macciotta A; Murtas R; Ottone M; Petri D; Renzi M
    Epidemiol Prev; 2024; 48(2):149-157. PubMed ID: 38770732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The PCORI Engagement Rubric: Promising Practices for Partnering in Research.
    Sheridan S; Schrandt S; Forsythe L; Hilliard TS; Paez KA;
    Ann Fam Med; 2017 Mar; 15(2):165-170. PubMed ID: 28289118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Perspectives on involvement in the peer-review process: surveys of patient and public reviewers at two journals.
    Schroter S; Price A; Flemyng E; Demaine A; Elliot J; Harmston RR; Richards T; Staniszewska S; Stephens R
    BMJ Open; 2018 Sep; 8(9):e023357. PubMed ID: 30185581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Methods and impact of engagement in research, from theory to practice and back again: early findings from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
    Forsythe L; Heckert A; Margolis MK; Schrandt S; Frank L
    Qual Life Res; 2018 Jan; 27(1):17-31. PubMed ID: 28500572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers.
    Freda MC; Kearney MH; Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty M
    J Prof Nurs; 2009; 25(2):101-8. PubMed ID: 19306833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Manuscript review continuing medical education: a retrospective investigation of the learning outcomes from this peer reviewer benefit.
    Kawczak S; Mustafa S
    BMJ Open; 2020 Nov; 10(11):e039687. PubMed ID: 33234636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal.
    Snell L; Spencer J
    Med Educ; 2005 Jan; 39(1):90-7. PubMed ID: 15612905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. How different is research done by the Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute, and what difference does it make?
    Luce BR; Simeone JC
    J Comp Eff Res; 2019 Oct; 8(14):1239-1251. PubMed ID: 31436471
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Characteristics of Early Recipients of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Funding.
    Mazur S; Bazemore A; Merenstein D
    Acad Med; 2016 Apr; 91(4):491-6. PubMed ID: 26862840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials.
    Callaham ML; Knopp RK; Gallagher EJ
    JAMA; 2002 Jun; 287(21):2781-3. PubMed ID: 12038910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.