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 *

157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3384418)

  • 1. Federal law offers protection for peer review.
    Holthaus D
    Hospitals; 1988 Jul; 62(13):46, 48. PubMed ID: 3384418
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. PL 99-660: improved protections or expensive requirements?
    Simonds G
    Health Prog; 1988 May; 69(4):59-62. PubMed ID: 10287183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Medical staff peer review--living with the Health Care Quality Improvement Act.
    Gleitz HG; Strickland NE
    Med Staff Couns; 1988; 2(4):1-12. PubMed ID: 10290180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

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

  • 7. Groups seek protection for peer review.
    Burda D
    Mod Healthc; 1988 Jan; 18(4):4. PubMed ID: 10285506
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. The impact of Patrick v. Burget on peer review.
    Gainer PS; Miles JJ
    Med Staff Couns; 1988; 2(4):13-21. PubMed ID: 10290181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Peer review after Patrick.
    Gebhard PG; Polk DJ
    Bull Am Coll Surg; 1988 Oct; 73(10):4-7. PubMed ID: 10289975
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Avoiding antitrust pitfalls in peer assistance programs.
    Hammaker MK
    J Am Health Care Assoc; 1985 Sep; 11(5):51-2. PubMed ID: 10272795
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Antitrust law and the medical staff.
    Holthaus D
    Trustee; 1988 Jul; 41(7):23. PubMed ID: 10288093
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Pitfalls of peer review: lesson from the Patrick case.
    Vander Veer JB
    Physicians Manage; 1985 Oct; 25(10):162-3, 166-9. PubMed ID: 10278364
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. After Patrick, don't forget the Health Care Quality Improvement Act.
    King MM
    Trustee; 1988 Nov; 41(11):16, 22. PubMed ID: 10290280
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Peer review gets a big legal push.
    Riffer J
    Hospitals; 1986 Nov; 60(22):78. PubMed ID: 3770707
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Peer review in the wake of Patrick.
    McCormick B
    Trustee; 1988 Jul; 41(7):17. PubMed ID: 10288090
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. The value of external peer review after the Health Care Quality Improvement Act and Patrick v. Burget.
    Couch JB; Kauffman A; Merry M
    Qual Assur Util Rev; 1989 Aug; 4(3):86-8. PubMed ID: 2535582
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.