Press Press Struck off, but why? BMJ 1999; 319 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7212.791 (Published 18 September 1999) Cite this as: BMJ 1999;319:791 Article Related content Metrics Responses Peer review Related articles No related articles found. See more Pathology reports solve “new bowel disease” riddle BMJ November 09, 2011, 343 d6823; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6823 Commentary: We came to an overwhelming and uniform opinion that these reports do not show colitis BMJ November 09, 2011, 343 d6979; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6979 Commentary: I see no convincing evidence of “enterocolitis,” “colitis,” or a “unique disease process” BMJ November 09, 2011, 343 d6985; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6985 Institutional research misconduct BMJ November 09, 2011, 343 d7284; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d7284 Is research safe in their hands? BMJ January 19, 2011, 342 d284; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d284 Cited by... The removal of patients who live outside the practice boundary: a study of outside-area removals in Northern Ireland in 2001-2002Abstract Fulltext PDF Patients' accounts of being removed from their general practitioner's list: qualitative studyAbstract Fulltext PDF General practitioners' reasons for removing patients from their lists: postal survey in England and WalesAbstract Fulltext PDF
