In the article titled “Negative and Positive Online Patient Reviews of Physicians—1 vs 5 Stars,” an incorrect type of online review cited has been corrected. In the Results section, “33 of 152 comments (21.7%) accompanied 5-star reviews based on how honest the physician seemed to be” has been changed to “33 of 152 comments (21.7%) accompanied 5-star reviews based on how knowledgeable the physician seemed to be.” This article has been corrected online.
from #AlexandrosSfakianakis via Alexandros G.Sfakianakis on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2lvwsfE
via IFTTT
Εγγραφή σε:
Σχόλια ανάρτησης (Atom)
Δημοφιλείς αναρτήσεις
-
Background Hyperthyroidism is associated with increased thrombotic risk. As contact system activation through formation of neutrophil extrac...
-
Abstract Objective To evaluate Chinese medicine (CM) formula Bazheng Powder (八正散) as an alternative therapeutic option for female patients...
-
Family: Know the drill New Straits Times Online One of my sons had this so often that his tonsils were removed. ... However, for som...
-
Abstract Unsaturated fatty acid biohydrogenation products from beef fat and pure fatty acids were subjected to the Ames Salmonella mutage...
-
UM-Chor1: establishment and characterization of the first validated clival chordoma cell line. J Neurosurg. 2017 Apr 21;:1-9 Authors:...
-
Impact of habitat loss and fragmentation on reproduction, dispersal and species persistence for an endangered Chilean tree Abstract Survival...
-
Publication date: Available online 10 May 2017 Source: Journal of Dairy Science Author(s): R.E. Vibart, M. Tavendale, D. Otter, B.H. Schw...
-
Competency-based psychiatric education for Indian medical undergraduates Vijayalakshmi Pernenkil Archives of Mental Health 2019 20(1):1-2 Be...
-
Related Articles Developmental control of macrophage function. Curr Opin Immunol. 2017 Dec 13;50:64-74 Authors: Bonnardel J, Guillia...
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου