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 *

101 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3655581)

  • 1. The PRO wants you!
    Greene R
    J Med Assoc Ga; 1987 Aug; 76(8):578-80. PubMed ID: 3655581
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. PSRO--placebo or therapy?
    Buchanan LC
    J Med Assoc Ga; 1973 May; 62(5):127-8. PubMed ID: 4736605
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Peer review and you.
    Rhyne RH
    J Med Assoc State Ala; 1973 May; 42(11):767-8. PubMed ID: 4735406
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. EMCRO: the hospital.
    Foster LA; Wells SB
    J Med Assoc Ga; 1973 Aug; 62(8):284-6. PubMed ID: 4737865
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. MFMC and peer review under PRO: what changes can you expect?
    Silver P
    J Miss State Med Assoc; 1984 Aug; 25(8):216-7. PubMed ID: 6541258
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Analysis of the PRO.
    Whittaker CK
    Mo Med; 1992 Apr; 89(4):205. PubMed ID: 1594005
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Confessions of a PRO reviewer.
    Fleischer LR
    Pa Med; 1989 Oct; 92(10):36. PubMed ID: 2812804
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. New methodology challenges PRO.
    Harrop DE
    Pa Med; 1993 Apr; 96(4):42. PubMed ID: 8479765
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. PRO review Part II: Surgical review activities.
    Murphy RA; Bennett T; Ryan CP
    J Med Assoc Ga; 1989 Sep; 78(9):607-9. PubMed ID: 2778404
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Whither the PRO? Analysis of the effectiveness of three Medicare peer review organizations in a Florida hospital.
    Fleegler BM; Wolk M; McCarville J
    J Fla Med Assoc; 1995 Mar; 82(3):203-5. PubMed ID: 7738525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. PRO Georgia 1987.
    Thomas LM
    J Med Assoc Ga; 1987 Aug; 76(8):573-5. PubMed ID: 3655579
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. PRO success vital to good public image.
    Harrop DE
    Pa Med; 1988 Nov; 91(11):22. PubMed ID: 3194140
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Editorial: Retroactive denial and you.
    Mullooly JP
    Wis Med J; 1975 Apr; 74(4):9. PubMed ID: 1170693
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Professional Standards Review Organizations (PSROs).
    Winterfeldt E
    J Am Diet Assoc; 1974 Dec; 65(6):654-6. PubMed ID: 4475053
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Providers question PROs' effectiveness. Critics contend peer review organizations are too costly and fail to improve the quality of care.
    Rothschild RD
    Health Prog; 1992; 73(6):28-32, 38. PubMed ID: 10119535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Editorial: Professional Standards Review Organizations (PSRO).
    Hillenbrand H
    J Dent Educ; 1973 Oct; 37(10):9-10. PubMed ID: 4582732
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Editorial: Peer review and all that.
    Moore FD
    J Indiana State Med Assoc; 1974 Nov; 67(11):1007-9. PubMed ID: 4474193
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Proceedings: Utilization review, medical audit, and peer review.
    Scott JC
    J Reprod Med; 1974 Feb; 12(2):57-8. PubMed ID: 4855852
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Establishing Professional Standards Review Organizations.
    Blackburn GL
    N Engl J Med; 1973 Jul; 289(1):48. PubMed ID: 4736177
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.