295 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11647564)
1. Monitoring of drug tests is faulted.
Eichenwald K
N Y Times Web; 1998 Jun; ():A14. PubMed ID: 11647564
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Federal report says protection of human subjects is threatened by numerous factors.
Maloney DM
Hum Res Rep; 1996 May; 11(5):1-3. PubMed ID: 11654438
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Protection of human subjects.
United States
Code Fed Regul Shipping; 1982 Oct; Part 46, Sections 46.101 to 46.306():. PubMed ID: 11660819
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Institutional review boards not paying enough attention to active research projects.
Maloney DM
Hum Res Rep; 1998 Nov; 13(11):1-2. PubMed ID: 11657741
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Testing drugs in pediatric populations: the FDA mandate.
Tauer CA
Account Res; 1999; 7(1):37-58. PubMed ID: 11657562
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Federal investigation concludes that institutional review boards are in trouble.
Maloney DM
Hum Res Rep; 1998 Aug; 13(8):1-2. PubMed ID: 11657190
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Institutional review boards and research on individuals with mental disorders.
Hoppe SK
Account Res; 1996; 4(3-4):187-95. PubMed ID: 11654514
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Half-full or half-empty? Evaluating IRB performance.
Mishkin B; Ariand N
Prof Ethics Rep; 1998; 11(3):4-7. PubMed ID: 11657925
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Report says institutional review boards are conducting inadequate reviews.
Maloney DM
Hum Res Rep; 1998 Sep; 13(9):1-2. PubMed ID: 11660603
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Neurobiological research involving human subjects: perspectives from the Office for Protection from Research Risks.
Puglisi JT; Ellis GB
Account Res; 1996; 4(3-4):261-5. PubMed ID: 11654521
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. All is not well in research on human subjects.
Goldman J
N Y Times Web; 1986 Mar; ():A26. PubMed ID: 11647822
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. IRBs and epidemiologic research: how inappropriate restrictions hamper studies.
Cann CI; Rothman KJ
IRB; 1984; 6(4):5-7. PubMed ID: 11649562
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. The noninstitutional review board: a case history.
Herman SS
IRB; 1984; 6(1):1-3, 12. PubMed ID: 11649540
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The concept of the IRB and bureaucratic reality: an exchange of letters.
van Eys J; Levine RJ
IRB; 1984; 6(4):8-10. PubMed ID: 11649563
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. IRBs and pharmaceutical company funding of research.
Jellinek MS; Levine RJ
IRB; 1982 Oct; 4(8):9-10. PubMed ID: 11651693
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Regulatory aspects of the distinction between research and medical practice.
McCarthy CR
IRB; 1984; 6(3):7-8. PubMed ID: 11649567
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Multicenter trials and subject eligibility: should local IRBs play a role?
Freedman B
IRB; 1994; 16(1-2):1-6. PubMed ID: 11652320
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. IRBs under the microscope.
Moreno JD
Kennedy Inst Ethics J; 1998 Sep; 8(3):329-37. PubMed ID: 11656936
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. U.S. halts research on humans at Duke: university can't ensure safety, probers find.
Weiss R
Washington Post; 1999 May; ():A1, A20. PubMed ID: 11647726
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Balancing moral principles in federal regulations on human research.
Ackerman TF
IRB; 1992; 14(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 11652041
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
