These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
3. Should IRBs monitor research more strictly? Christakis NA IRB; 1988; 10(2):8-10. PubMed ID: 11650024 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Protecting and promoting the human research subject: a review of the function of research ethics boards in Canadian faculties of medicine. National Council on Bioethics in Human Research (Canada). Working Group on Evaluation NCBHR Commun; 1995; 6(1):3-32. PubMed ID: 11654937 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. On studying the powerful (or fearing to do so): a vital role for IRBs. Sieber JE IRB; 1989; 11(5):1-6. PubMed ID: 11650252 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Ethics of clinical trials for research ethics boards: proceedings of a national workshop. National Council on Bioethics in Human Research (Canada) NCBHR Commun; 1991; 2(2):4-23. PubMed ID: 11659919 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. "There is no substantive due process right to conduct human-subject research": the saga of the Minnesota Gamma Hydroxybutyrate Study. Hammerschmidt DE IRB; 1997; 19(3-4):13-5. PubMed ID: 11656944 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. The Ethics of Human Experimentation: Reinventing the Research Ethics Board: Proceedings of a National Workshop held in Ottawa, Ontario, March 5-6, 1995. National Council on Bioethics in Human Research (Canada) NCBHR Commun; 1996; 7(1):5-35. PubMed ID: 11654527 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Institutional review boards as an instrument of assessment: research involving human subjects in the U.S. Gray BH Sci Technol Human Values; 1978; (25):. PubMed ID: 11663042 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Human experimentation: the review process in practice. Cowan DH Case West Reserve Law Rev; 1975; 25(3):533-64. PubMed ID: 11661165 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The editor and the IRB: should journals notify IRBs about possibly unethical research with human subjects? Szidon JP; Swazey JP IRB; 1986; 8(5):10-2. PubMed ID: 11653766 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Judging the ethical merit of clinical trials: what criteria do research ethics board members use? Meslin EM; Lavery JV; Sutherland HJ; Till JE IRB; 1994; 16(4):6-10. PubMed ID: 11654136 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Research fraud, misconduct, and the IRB. Hilgartner S IRB; 1990; 12(1):1-4. PubMed ID: 11651971 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. "Evaluation of human subject protections in schizophrenia research conducted by the University of ..." (Part III). Maloney DM Hum Res Rep; 2000 Jan; 15(1):5-6. PubMed ID: 11658036 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Success in spite of failure: why IRBs falter in reviewing risks and benefits. Williams PC IRB; 1984; 6(3):1-4. PubMed ID: 11649564 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. A survey of university institutional review boards: characteristics, policies, and procedures. Hayes GJ; Hayes SC; Dykstra T IRB; 1995; 17(3):1-6. PubMed ID: 11654267 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Guide to decision-making in institutional review of proposals for human experimentation. Himmelsbach CK Man Med; 1978; 3(3):201-220. PubMed ID: 12085911 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]