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. Protocol review within the context of a research program. Miller FG; Rosenstein DL IRB; 1998; 20(4):7-10. PubMed ID: 11657088 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. MRC to go ahead with controversial tamoxifen trial. Bull Med Ethics; 1991 Oct; No. 72():3-5. PubMed ID: 11659455 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Tamoxifen turmoil: new issues emerge as healthy women volunteer to take a potent drug. Raloff J Sci News; 1994 Oct; 146(17):268-9. PubMed ID: 11659906 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Medical Research Council multi-centre trial of orchiectomy in carcinoma of the prostate; a follow-up: MRC trial of orchiectomy in carcinoma of the prostate. Nicholson RH IRB; 1986; 8(5):1-5. PubMed ID: 11653765 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. The ethical approach to randomization in oncology. Arpaillange P; Dion S Drugs Exp Clin Res; 1986; 12(1-2-3):99-103. PubMed ID: 11650154 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Patients' rights in research. Warden J BMJ; 1991 Dec; 303(6816):1498. PubMed ID: 11642958 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. IRB review of a Phase II randomized clinical trial involving incompetent patients suffering from severe closed head injury. Prentice ED; Antonson DL; Leibrock LG; Kelso TK; Sears TD IRB; 1993; 15(5):1-7. PubMed ID: 11659703 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. The changing clinical trials scene: the role of the IRB. Mitchell SC; Steingrub J IRB; 1988; 10(4):1-5. PubMed ID: 11650078 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Ethics of drug experimentation. Sgreccia E Dolentium Hominum; 1987; 4(2nd Yr. 1):60-75. PubMed ID: 11653200 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Community-based AIDS research. Merton V Eval Rev; 1990 Oct; 14(5):502-37. PubMed ID: 11656281 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Ethical review of clinical research. Williams J Bull Med Ethics; 1993 Nov; No. 93():28-30. PubMed ID: 11659714 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Patient-funded research: paying the piper or protecting the patient? Morreim EH IRB; 1991; 13(3):1-6. PubMed ID: 11651046 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Whose interests: patient's or researcher's? Thornton H Bull Med Ethics; 1993 Nov; No. 93():13-9. PubMed ID: 11659712 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. The paradoxical case of payment as benefit to research subjects. Macklin R IRB; 1989; 11(6):1-3. PubMed ID: 11650284 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Research on healthy volunteers: a report of the Royal College of Physicians. Royal College of Physicians J R Coll Physicians Lond; 1986 Oct; 20(4):3-17. PubMed ID: 11643937 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Is informed consent essential for all chemotherapy studies? Tobias JS; Houghton J Eur J Cancer; 1994; 30A(7):807-9. PubMed ID: 11644622 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]