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 *

160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38590556)

  • 41. Online Ratings and Reviews of American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Surgeons.
    Velasco BT; Chien B; Kwon JY; Miller CP
    Foot Ankle Spec; 2020 Feb; 13(1):43-49. PubMed ID: 30795702
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Gender Differences in Letters of Recommendations and Personal Statements for Neurotology Fellowship over 10 Years: A Deep Learning Linguistic Analysis.
    Vasan V; Cheng CP; Fan CJ; Lerner DK; Pascual K; Iloreta AM; Babu SC; Cosetti MK
    Otol Neurotol; 2024 Sep; 45(8):827-832. PubMed ID: 39052892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Chronic Pain Practices: An Evaluation of Positive and Negative Online Patient Reviews.
    Orhurhu MS; Salisu B; Sottosanti E; Abimbola N; Urits I; Jones M; Viswanath O; Kaye AD; Simopoulos T; Orhurhu V
    Pain Physician; 2019 Sep; 22(5):E477-E486. PubMed ID: 31561660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Do Patients Assess Physicians Differently in Video Visits as Compared with In-Person Visits? Insights from Text-Mining Online Physician Reviews.
    Chandrasekaran R; Bapat P; Jeripity Venkata P; Moustakas E
    Telemed J E Health; 2023 Oct; 29(10):1557-1565. PubMed ID: 36847352
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. An Assessment of Online Reviews of Hand Surgeons.
    Kirkpatrick W; Abboudi J; Kim N; Medina J; Maltenfort M; Seigerman D; Lutsky K; Beredjiklian PK
    Arch Bone Jt Surg; 2017 May; 5(3):139-144. PubMed ID: 28656160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. How wait-times, social media, and surgeon demographics influence online reviews on leading review websites for joint replacement surgeons.
    Damodar D; Donnally CJ; McCormick JR; Li DJ; Ingrasci GV; Roche MW; Vakharia RM; Law TY; Hernandez VH
    J Clin Orthop Trauma; 2019; 10(4):761-767. PubMed ID: 31316251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. What Patients Think About Their Interventional Radiologists: Assessment Using a Leading Physician Ratings Website.
    Obele CC; Duszak R; Hawkins CM; Rosenkrantz AB
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2017 May; 14(5):609-614. PubMed ID: 28017529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Negative Online Ratings of Joint Replacement Surgeons: An Analysis of 6,402 Reviews.
    Imbergamo C; Brzezinski A; Patankar A; Weintraub M; Mazzaferro N; Kayiaros S
    Arthroplast Today; 2021 Jun; 9():106-111. PubMed ID: 34189214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. How Do Patients Rate Their Radiation Oncologists in the Modern Era: An Analysis of Vitals.com.
    Randhawa S; Viqar A; Strother J; Prabhu AV; Xia F; Heron D; Beriwal S
    Cureus; 2018 Sep; 10(9):e3312. PubMed ID: 30473945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Association Between Online Reviews of Substance Use Disorder Treatment Facilities and Drug-Induced Mortality Rates: Cross-Sectional Analysis.
    Abrams MP; Merchant RM; Meisel ZF; Pelullo AP; Chandra Guntuku S; Agarwal AK
    JMIR AI; 2023 Dec; 2():e46317. PubMed ID: 38875553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Patient satisfaction reviews for 967 spine neurosurgeons on Healthgrades.
    Gupta A; Gupta R; White MD; Reddy V; Chang YF; Agarwal P; Alan N; Agarwal N
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2022 May; 36(5):869-875. PubMed ID: 34891133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. [German language physician rating sites].
    Strech D; Reimann S
    Gesundheitswesen; 2012 Aug; 74(8-9):e61-7. PubMed ID: 22189671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Understanding Gender Biases and Differences in Web-Based Reviews of Sanctioned Physicians Through a Machine Learning Approach: Mixed Methods Study.
    Barnett J; Bjarnadóttir MV; Anderson D; Chen C
    JMIR Form Res; 2022 Sep; 6(9):e34902. PubMed ID: 36074543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
    Crider K; Williams J; Qi YP; Gutman J; Yeung L; Mai C; Finkelstain J; Mehta S; Pons-Duran C; Menéndez C; Moraleda C; Rogers L; Daniels K; Green P
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2022 Feb; 2(2022):. PubMed ID: 36321557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Online reviews of 500 urologists.
    Ellimoottil C; Hart A; Greco K; Quek ML; Farooq A
    J Urol; 2013 Jun; 189(6):2269-73. PubMed ID: 23228385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. "When 'Bad' is 'Good'": Identifying Personal Communication and Sentiment in Drug-Related Tweets.
    Daniulaityte R; Chen L; Lamy FR; Carlson RG; Thirunarayan K; Sheth A
    JMIR Public Health Surveill; 2016 Oct; 2(2):e162. PubMed ID: 27777215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. An analysis of online evaluations on a physician rating website: evidence from a German public reporting instrument.
    Emmert M; Meier F
    J Med Internet Res; 2013 Aug; 15(8):e157. PubMed ID: 23919987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Online Ratings of ASOPRS Surgeons: What Do Your Patients Really Think of You?
    Vu AF; Espinoza GM; Perry JD; Chundury RV
    Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg; 2017; 33(6):466-470. PubMed ID: 27879621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Comparison of Dermatologist Ratings on Health Care-Specific and General Consumer Websites.
    Waqas B; Cooley V; Lipner SR
    Cutis; 2021 Apr; 107(4):182-184. PubMed ID: 34096845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Examining how customers perceive community pharmacies based on Google maps reviews: Multivariable and sentiment analysis.
    Laghbi YA; Al Dhoayan M
    Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm; 2024 Sep; 15():100498. PubMed ID: 39286030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.