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 *

105 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3378774)

  • 21. Court upholds law's immunities in peer review cases.
    Kadzielski MA
    Health Prog; 1990; 71(6):21, 31. PubMed ID: 10105569
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Peer review immunity after Patrick v. Burget.
    Kelly JP
    Healthspan; 1988 Jun; 5(6):2-5. PubMed ID: 10288658
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. What the crackdown on hospital privileges means to you.
    Horsley JE
    Med Econ; 1979 Aug; 56(17):93, 96-8. PubMed ID: 10243250
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Antitrust. Fear of the peer review.
    Lerner AN; Spong SG
    Group Pract J; 1989; 38(5):22, 24-7. PubMed ID: 10295461
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Peer review after Patrick.
    Bierig J
    J Health Hosp Law; 1988 Jun; 21(6):135-9. PubMed ID: 10287912
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Do we have the will and the way?
    Felch WC
    Internist; 1980 May; 21(4):12, 16. PubMed ID: 10246845
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Supreme Court decides Patrick; peer review alive and well despite ruling.
    Christensen JD
    Health Law Vigil; 1988 Jun; 11(13):1-5. PubMed ID: 10287418
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. New peer review law provides immunity with obligations.
    Valiant C
    Physician Exec; 1987; 13(3):26-7. PubMed ID: 10312139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Curbing the abuse of summary suspension. California Medical Association.
    Chenen AR
    Med Staff Couns; 1993; 7(1):89-90. PubMed ID: 10123464
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Perspectives. The Patrick case: implications for peer review.
    Mcgraw Hills Med Health; 1988 May; 42(22):suppl 4 p.. PubMed ID: 10287491
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. How to stop a wayward doctor without getting burned.
    Holoweiko M
    Med Econ; 1989 Nov; 66(23):184-8, 191-2, 194 passim. PubMed ID: 10296180
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Patrick v. Burget; will the state action doctrine protect bad faith peer review?
    Healthspan; 1988 Feb; 5(2):20-2. PubMed ID: 10288650
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. High court's override on Patrick renews concerns about peer review risk.
    Halper HR; Kazon PM
    Bus Health; 1988 Jul; 5(9):40-1. PubMed ID: 10288490
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. How to overhaul your physician credentialing process.
    Hosp Peer Rev; 1980 Oct; 5(10):113-5. PubMed ID: 10248963
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Eleventh Circuit allows state action defense in medical staff antitrust case.
    Miller RD
    Hosp Law Newsl; 1989 Jan; 6(3):1-5. PubMed ID: 10292016
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Is this ruling really a boost for peer review immunity?
    Thomas MC
    Med Econ; 1990 Nov; 67(23):93-4, 97, 100-1. PubMed ID: 10108713
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Antitrust. Is quality review in jeopardy?
    Pollner F
    Med World News; 1988 Jun; 29(12):34-6, 38, 43-7. PubMed ID: 10287973
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Austin decision good news for peer reviewers.
    Hudson T
    Hospitals; 1993 Jan; 67(2):46-8. PubMed ID: 8419281
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. "State action" doctrine as a defense in antitrust challenges.
    Berg RN
    J Med Assoc Ga; 1985 Feb; 74(2):93-5. PubMed ID: 3838333
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.