Connection

Peter Cotton to Patient Selection

This is a "connection" page, showing publications Peter Cotton has written about Patient Selection.
Connection Strength

0.890
  1. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: maximizing benefits and minimizing risks. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2012 Jul; 22(3):587-99.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.318
  2. Age and alarm symptoms do not predict endoscopic findings among patients with dyspepsia: a multicentre database study. Gut. 2001 Jul; 49(1):29-34.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.150
  3. Alcohol's threat to liver transplant recipients may be overstated, suggests retrospective study. JAMA. 1994 Jun 15; 271(23):1815.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.092
  4. Women's health initiative leads way as research begins to fill gender gaps. JAMA. 1992 Jan 22-29; 267(4):469-70, 473.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.077
  5. Twenty more ERCP lawsuits: why? Poor indications and communications. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Oct; 72(4):904.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.071
  6. Infection after ERCP, and antibiotic prophylaxis: a sequential quality-improvement approach over 11 years. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 Mar; 67(3):471-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.058
  7. Analysis of 59 ERCP lawsuits; mainly about indications. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006 Mar; 63(3):378-82; quiz 464.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.052
  8. Randomization is not the (only) answer: a plea for structured objective evaluation of endoscopic therapy. Endoscopy. 2000 May; 32(5):402-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.034
  9. FDA lifts ban on women in early drug tests, will require companies to look for gender differences. JAMA. 1993 Apr 28; 269(16):2067.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.021
  10. Comparative performance of uncoated, self-expanding metal biliary stents of different designs in 2 diameters: final results of an international multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Sep; 70(3):445-53.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.016
Connection Strength

The connection strength for concepts is the sum of the scores for each matching publication.

Publication scores are based on many factors, including how long ago they were written and whether the person is a first or senior author.