138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10346728)
1. FDA regulation of genetic testing: institutional reluctance and public guardianship.
Huang A
Food Drug Law J; 1998; 53(3):555-91. PubMed ID: 10346728
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. A public health perspective on the control of predictive screening for breast cancer.
Cunningham GC
Health Matrix Clevel; 1997; 7(1):31-48. PubMed ID: 10167177
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. FDA to regulate direct-to-consumer genetic tests.
Brower V
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2010 Nov; 102(21):1610-2, 1617. PubMed ID: 20966430
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. In search of a coherent framework: options for FDA oversight of genetic tests.
Javitt GH
Food Drug Law J; 2007; 62(4):617-52. PubMed ID: 18557224
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. [Federal judge and government of the United States against gene patenting].
Cassier M; Stoppa-Lyonnet D
Med Sci (Paris); 2011; 27(6-7):662-6. PubMed ID: 21718652
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. FDA approves genetic test for women with breast cancer.
Josefson D
BMJ; 1998 Jan; 316(7126):168. PubMed ID: 9468672
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Commercialization of genetic testing services: the FDA, market forces, and biological tarot cards.
Malinowski MJ; Blatt RJ
Tulane Law Rev; 1997 Mar; 71(4):1211-312. PubMed ID: 15744901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Jewish theological and moral reflections on genetic screening: the case of BRCA1.
Dorff EN
Health Matrix Clevel; 1997; 7(1):65-96. PubMed ID: 10167179
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. The FDA is coming! The FDA is coming!
Leonard DG
Mol Diagn; 2001 Sep; 6(3):153-4. PubMed ID: 11571707
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Direct-to-consumer genetic tests, government oversight, and the First Amendment: what the government can (and can't) do to protect the public's health.
Javitt GH; Stanley E; Hudson K
Oklahoma Law Rev; 2004; 57(2):251-302. PubMed ID: 15658034
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Registration of food facilities under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. Final rule.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS
Fed Regist; 2005 Oct; 70(190):57505-9. PubMed ID: 16200686
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. How will the FDA impact the laboratory developed test?
Davis J; Wentz J
Clin Lab Sci; 2007; 20(3):130-1. PubMed ID: 17691668
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Separating predictive genetic testing from snake oil: regulation, liabilities, and lost opportunities.
Malinowski MJ
Jurimetrics; 2000; 41(1):23-52. PubMed ID: 15744897
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [More controversies about direct-to-consumer genetic profiles].
Jordan B
Med Sci (Paris); 2014 Mar; 30(3):227-8. PubMed ID: 24685204
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Truth in testing laws: a shot in the arm for designer gene tests.
van Voorhees A
Health Matrix Clevel; 2006; 16(2):797-829. PubMed ID: 16948256
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. A warning that must not be ignored.
Hudson K
New Sci; 2003 May; 178(2393):5. PubMed ID: 14686409
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. What's brewing in genetic testing.
Nat Genet; 2002 Dec; 32(4):553-4. PubMed ID: 12457183
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Advertising genetic testing for breast cancer.
Weber LJ; Bissell MG
Clin Leadersh Manag Rev; 2004; 18(1):50-1. PubMed ID: 14968755
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Genetic testing for hereditary disease: attending to relational responsibility.
Burgess MM; d'Agincourt-Canning L
J Clin Ethics; 2001; 12(4):361-72. PubMed ID: 12026741
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Opinion about reproductive decision making among individuals undergoing BRCA1/2 genetic testing in a multicentre Spanish cohort.
Fortuny D; Balmaña J; Graña B; Torres A; Ramón y Cajal T; Darder E; Gadea N; Velasco A; López C; Sanz J; Alonso C; Brunet J
Hum Reprod; 2009 Apr; 24(4):1000-6. PubMed ID: 19112076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
