|
Volumn 72, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 904-
|
Twenty more ERCP lawsuits: Why? Poor indications and communications
|
Author keywords
[No Author keywords available]
|
Indexed keywords
BILIARY TRACT DISEASE;
CHOLECYSTECTOMY;
COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY;
DISEASE SEVERITY;
ENDOSCOPIC ECHOGRAPHY;
ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY;
HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION;
HUMAN;
INFORMED CONSENT;
INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION;
LAW SUIT;
LETTER;
MAGNETIC RESONANCE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY;
MANOMETRY;
MEDICAL EXPERT;
MEDICAL SOCIETY;
MEDICAL SPECIALIST;
NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION;
PANCREATITIS;
PATIENT REFERRAL;
POSTOPERATIVE PAIN;
PRACTICE GUIDELINE;
PRIORITY JOURNAL;
RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS;
SPHINCTER MANOMETRY;
SPHINCTER OF ODDI DYSFUNCTION III;
SPHINCTEROTOMY;
TREATMENT INDICATION;
ULTRASOUND;
CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY, ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE;
CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY, MAGNETIC RESONANCE;
ENDOSONOGRAPHY;
GUIDELINE ADHERENCE;
HUMANS;
MALPRACTICE;
PANCREATITIS;
PATIENT SELECTION;
PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC;
UNITED STATES;
|
EID: 77957599608
PISSN: 00165107
EISSN: 10976779
Source Type: Journal
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.01.058 Document Type: Letter |
Times cited : (19)
|
References (5)
|