Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Writing”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,477 records · Page 82Linked to original sources
PubMed2006

ACC/AHA 2006 guideline update on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for noncardiac surgery: focused update on perioperative beta-blocker therapy: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery) developed in collaboration with the American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗
PubMed2006

ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing Committee to Revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease) developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Heart Valve Diseases↗
PubMed2005

Abstract writing.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Abstracting and Indexing↗
PubMed2005

How to write up a hypothesis: the good, the bad and the ugly.

Medical Hypotheses exists to give ideas and speculations in medicine a fair hearing. Doing this is not easy. Most conventional journals would regard some of what is published here as questionable, most referees would reject it as 'unproven'. We have more liberal standards, for reasons we have presented before. But we still require 'good' science -- logical argument that is supported by fact and comes to interesting, even useful, conclusions. Alas, not everything received comes close to even this liberal standard. Since I joined the Editorial Board I have read about 130 submissions to Medical Hypotheses. They range from exciting and insightful papers that might be substantial advances in their field, to complete rubbish. I want to lay out what I believe to be the essence of the former so as to avoid having to read so much of the latter.

Models, Theoretical↗
PubMed2006

Ready to write.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Humans↗