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 *

225 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3947772)

  • 1. Book reviews in medical journals.
    Kroenke K
    Bull Med Libr Assoc; 1986 Jan; 74(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 3947772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Current status of biomedical book reviewing: Part III. Duplication patterns in biomedical book reviewing.
    Chen CC
    Bull Med Libr Assoc; 1974 Jul; 62(3):296-301. PubMed ID: 4471577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Medical book reviewing.
    Morton PY
    Bull Med Libr Assoc; 1983 Apr; 71(2):202-6. PubMed ID: 6860827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Current status of biomedical book reviewing. I. Key biomedical reviewing journals with quantitative significance.
    Chen CC; Wright AM
    Bull Med Libr Assoc; 1974 Apr; 62(2):105-12. PubMed ID: 4826479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Current status of biomedical book reviewing. II. Time lag in biomedical book reviewing.
    Chen CC
    Bull Med Libr Assoc; 1974 Apr; 62(2):113-9. PubMed ID: 4826480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Current status of biomedical book reviewing: Part IV. Major American and British biomedical book publishers.
    Chen CC
    Bull Med Libr Assoc; 1974 Jul; 62(3):302-7. PubMed ID: 4466508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature.
    Kelly KD; Travers A; Dorgan M; Slater L; Rowe BH
    Ann Emerg Med; 2001 Nov; 38(5):518-26. PubMed ID: 11679863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation of drug reviews.
    Hendrickson NM; Amerson AB
    Am J Hosp Pharm; 1986 Oct; 43(10):2468-73. PubMed ID: 3788998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals.
    Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH
    J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 18764847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal.
    Snell L; Spencer J
    Med Educ; 2005 Jan; 39(1):90-7. PubMed ID: 15612905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Analysis of recorded biomedical book and journal use in the Yale Medical Library. I. Date and subject relations.
    Stangl P; Kilgour FG
    Bull Med Libr Assoc; 1967 Jul; 55(3):290-300. PubMed ID: 6041834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Scientific biomedical journals in Croatia.
    Misak A; Petrak J; Pećina M
    Croat Med J; 2002 Feb; 43(1):8-15. PubMed ID: 11828551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
    Armstrong AW; Idriss SZ; Kimball AB; Bernhard JD
    J Am Acad Dermatol; 2008 Apr; 58(4):632-5. PubMed ID: 18249470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts.
    Montori VM; Wilczynski NL; Morgan D; Haynes RB;
    BMC Med; 2003 Nov; 1():2. PubMed ID: 14633274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Book reviewing: keeping the audience in mind.
    Hill K
    Nurse Author Ed; 1997; 7(1):4, 7-8. PubMed ID: 9397813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Questions JAVMA's method of reviewing books.
    Feldmann BM
    J Am Vet Med Assoc; 2004 Feb; 224(3):360; author reply 360-1. PubMed ID: 14765793
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Cochrane Skin Group systematic reviews are more methodologically rigorous than other systematic reviews in dermatology.
    Collier A; Heilig L; Schilling L; Williams H; Dellavalle RP
    Br J Dermatol; 2006 Dec; 155(6):1230-5. PubMed ID: 17107394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.
    Wager E; Parkin EC; Tamber PS
    BMC Med; 2006 May; 4():13. PubMed ID: 16734897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors.
    Rivara FP; Cummings P; Ringold S; Bergman AB; Joffe A; Christakis DA
    J Pediatr; 2007 Aug; 151(2):202-5. PubMed ID: 17643779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Statistical reviewing policies in dermatology journals: results of a questionnaire survey of editors.
    Katz KA; Crawford GH; Lu DW; Kantor J; Margolis DJ
    J Am Acad Dermatol; 2004 Aug; 51(2):234-40. PubMed ID: 15280842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.