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 *

75 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 376351)

  • 1. Functions of an institutional a review board and the protection of human subjects.
    Brown JH
    Fed Proc; 1979 Jun; 38(7):2049-50. PubMed ID: 376351
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evaluating the surgery literature: can standardizing peer-review today predict manuscript impact tomorrow?
    Sosa JA; Mehta P; Thomas DC; Berland G; Gross C; McNamara RL; Rosenthal R; Udelsman R; Bravata DM; Roman SA
    Ann Surg; 2009 Jul; 250(1):152-8. PubMed ID: 19561471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Peer review--still the well-functioning quality control and enhancer in scientific research.
    Isohanni M
    Acta Psychiatr Scand; 2005 Sep; 112(3):165-6. PubMed ID: 16095469
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. How do peer reviewers of journal articles perform? Evaluating the reviewers with a sham paper.
    Kumar PD
    J Assoc Physicians India; 1999 Feb; 47(2):198-200. PubMed ID: 10999090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Exploring the institutional review board process.
    Nokes KM
    J N Y State Nurses Assoc; 1989 Sep; 20(3):7-10. PubMed ID: 2778556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Continued concern: human subject protection, the institutional review board, and continuing review.
    Hoffman S
    Tenn Law Rev; 2001; 68(4):725-70. PubMed ID: 16189912
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Quality control in clinical trials].
    Fukushima M
    Gan To Kagaku Ryoho; 1996 Jan; 23(2):172-82. PubMed ID: 8611045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Training and experience of peer reviewers: an additional variable to consider.
    Kulstad E
    PLoS Med; 2007 Mar; 4(3):e143; author reply e145. PubMed ID: 17388681
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Protecting human research subjects.
    Bertholf RL
    Ann Clin Lab Sci; 2001 Jan; 31(1):119-27. PubMed ID: 11314861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Peer review--the newcomers' perspective.
    Mainguy G; Motamedi MR; Mietchen D
    PLoS Biol; 2005 Sep; 3(9):e326. PubMed ID: 16149851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation.
    Horrobin DF
    JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1438-41. PubMed ID: 2304222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Institutional review board consideration of chart reviews, case reports, and observational studies.
    Neff MJ
    Respir Care; 2008 Oct; 53(10):1350-3. PubMed ID: 18811999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Toward benchmarking medical research--defining and applying key performance indicators in the measurement of research output.
    French P
    Am Clin Lab; 1998 Aug; 17(7):12-4. PubMed ID: 10182366
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Protection of human subjects; standards for institutional review boards for clinical investigations--Food and Drug Administration. Final rule.
    Fed Regist; 1981 Jan; 46(17 pt 2):8958-79. PubMed ID: 10249529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [From the Cochrane Library: the use of peer review is still under discussion].
    Stijntjes F; Veeken H
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2008 Apr; 152(16):934-7. PubMed ID: 18561790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Peer review of research grant applications at the National Institutes of Health 3: review by an advisory board/council.
    Henley C
    Fed Proc; 1977 Sep; 36(10):2335-8. PubMed ID: 892000
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Importance of peer-reviewed science in the debates on public policy.
    Scanes CG
    Poult Sci; 2009 Jan; 88(1):1. PubMed ID: 19096049
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Evaluation of social relevance of applied health research: a rough indicator may be the significance of publishing in national professional journals].
    Bouter LM; Knottnerus JA
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2000 Jun; 144(24):1178-83. PubMed ID: 10876699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A peer review review.
    Wencel S
    Wis Med J; 1989 Sep; 88(9):27-32, 35. PubMed ID: 2588651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Ethical and institutional review board issues.
    Skolnick BE
    Adv Neurol; 1998; 76():253-62. PubMed ID: 9408484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.