Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:7487386rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0205145lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:7487386lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0392360lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:7487386lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0039593lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:7487386lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0376243lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:7487386lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1552848lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:7487386lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1523987lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:7487386lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C2346608lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:issue10lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:dateCreated1995-11-30lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:abstractTextFixed costs are higher and variable costs lower for clinical laboratory testing than for alternate-site testing (AST). For AST to become cost-effective, variable costs must be reduced. Four models for accounting for the costs of clinical laboratory testing and AST are compared. A common error is to omit some of the indirect costs of a cost-per-test analysis for AST, thereby providing false claims. For a cost-per-test analysis, we recommend that identical categories be used for both the central laboratory and for AST. However, cost-per-test data alone do not completely represent institutional costs or savings associated with laboratory testing at any site.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:citationSubsetAIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:monthOctlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:issn0003-9985lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:authorpubmed-author:PhillipsD LDLlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:authorpubmed-author:HowanitzP JPJlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:authorpubmed-author:De CresceR...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:volume119lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:pagination898-901lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:dateRevised2000-12-18lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7487386-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7487386-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7487386-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7487386-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7487386-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:year1995lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:articleTitleFinancial justification of alternate site testing.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:affiliationRush-Presbyterian St Luke's Medical Center, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7487386pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed