<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: duplicate</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'duplicate'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22duplicate%22&t=%22duplicate%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:52:14 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Lesbian Deaf parents Unspeakably cruel to their child…</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4361197&amp;cid=t_166431_129_f&amp;fid=38601&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fattherimmm.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F01%2Flesbian-deaf-parents-unspeakably-cruel_18.html</link>
            <description>Born to be deaf, is an recent article by DANIEL JEFFREYS, in which a Washington Dr accuses deaf parents of being cruel to their child by not giving their 4 month old child the hearing aid the child needs... what was feared, extremists denying a child a... (Source: Deaf Village)</description>
            <author>Deaf Village</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4361197</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:17:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4361197</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>From “Winnie The Pooh”: Edward Bear And Primary Care</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3603596&amp;cid=t_166431_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Ffrom-winnie-the-pooh-edward-bear-and-primary-care%2F2010.05.26</link>
            <description>Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump, on the back of his head, behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming downstairs, but sometimes he feels that there really is another way, if only he could stop bumping for a moment and think of it. 
&amp;#8211; From A.A. Milne&amp;#8217;s &amp;#8220;Winnie the Pooh and the House at Pooh Corner.&amp;#8221;
Internists, I expect, will identify with Edward Bear.
Richard Baron&amp;#8217;s study in the NEJM on the amount of work he and his colleagues do outside of an office visit &amp;#8212; the &amp;#8220;bump, bump, bump&amp;#8221; of a busy internal medicine (IM) practice &amp;#8212; has resonated with many of his colleagues.
Jay Larson, who often posts comments on this blog, did a similar analysis for his general IM practice in Monta...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3603596</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 14:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3603596</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Supplementary fee scale 2009/10 consultation response</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2924776&amp;cid=t_166431_86_f&amp;fid=36669&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffadelibrary.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F10%2F25%2Fsupplementary-fee-scale-200910-consultation-response%2F</link>
            <description>Title: Supplementary fee scale 2009/10 consultation response
Skinny: Results of the Audit Commissions consultation on its proposed work programme and scale of fees for the National Duplicate Registration Initiative (NDRI) 2009/10 between September and October 2009. The Commission has now considered all of the responses and has agreed to confirm the work programme and scale of fees set out in the consultation document.
Publisher: Audit Commission

Size of Publication: 3p
Published: 12/10/2009


Posted in Grey Literature, NHS Tagged: Audit Commission, Fees, Grey Literature, National Duplicate Registration Initiative, NDRI (Source: Fade Library)</description>
            <author>Fade Library</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2924776</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:01:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2924776</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Oops, I Did It Again: Duplication in Peer-Reviewed Research</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1179671&amp;cid=t_166431_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2008%2F01%2F26%2Foops-i-did-it-again-duplication-in-peer-reviewed-research%2F</link>
            <description>It&amp;#8217;s like we all went back to college one day and all the teachers took a nap while we cribbed off of one another&amp;#8217;s tests.
	Okay, it&amp;#8217;s not that bad. But it does raise questions about how much of a gold standard peer-reviewed research really is when they can&amp;#8217;t detect copying (or as the researchers call it, &amp;#8220;duplication&amp;#8221;), something virtually every college professor looks for these days in their students&amp;#8217; research papers.
	A commentary in this week&amp;#8217;s issue of Nature found that there&amp;#8217;s some copying going on in the medical scientific database, Medline. It&amp;#8217;s not a horrible epidemic &amp;#8212; only 0.7% of the entries they studies showed duplication &amp;#8212; and in 20% of those entries, it was for translation into a foreign language.
	But t...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1179671</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:02:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1179671</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

