288 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11652322)
1. An update on the PEG-SOD study involving incompetent subjects: FDA permits an exception to informed consent requirements.
Prentice ED; Antonson DL; Leibrock LG; Prabhu VC; Kelso TK; Sears TD
IRB; 1994; 16(1-2):16-8. PubMed ID: 11652322
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. FDA revises informed consent regulations for emergency research.
Menasché A; Levine RJ
IRB; 1995; 17(5-6):19-22. PubMed ID: 11653359
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Emergency trials 'by popular consent.
Kiernan V
New Sci; 1995 Nov; 148(2002):6. PubMed ID: 11656475
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Informed consent: the FDA's perspective.
Bagley G
Food Drug Law J; 1993; 48(2):181-6. PubMed ID: 11653141
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. An IRB member's perspective on access to innovative therapy.
Moore DL
Albany Law Rev; 1994; 57(3):559-81. PubMed ID: 11652854
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Surrogate consent and the incompetent experimental subject.
Bein PM
Food Drug Cosmet Law J; 1991 Sep; 46(5):739-71. PubMed ID: 11651381
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. An even safer safety net.
Prentice E
Hastings Cent Rep; 1997; 27(3):46. PubMed ID: 11644996
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Institutional review boards in the university setting: review of pharmaceutical testing protocols, informed consent and ethical concerns.
Kobasic DM
J Coll Univ Law; 1988; 15(2):185-216. PubMed ID: 11659168
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. FDA's new rule on treatment use and sale of investigational new drugs.
Levine RJ
IRB; 1987; 9(4):1-4. PubMed ID: 11649946
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Research involving children: an interpretation of the new regulations.
Levine RJ
IRB; 1983; 5(4):1-5. PubMed ID: 11649521
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. IRBs and randomized clinical trials.
Meinert CL
IRB; 1998; 20(2-3):9-12. PubMed ID: 11656915
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Exception from informed consent for emergency research: drawing on existing skills and experience.
Davis AM
IRB; 1998; 20(5):1-8. PubMed ID: 11657584
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Proposal on waiver of informed consent poses major issues for research ethics.
Maloney DM
Hum Res Rep; 1997 Sep; 12(9):1-3. PubMed ID: 11660533
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Informed consent in psychiatric research.
Roth LH; Appelbaum PS; Lidz CW; Benson P; Winslade WJ
Rutgers Law Rev; 1987; 39(2-3):425-41. PubMed ID: 11659013
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. IRB review of adverse events in investigational drug studies.
Prentice ED; Gordon B
IRB; 1997; 19(6):1-4. PubMed ID: 11656910
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Considering experimentation and elusive truth: informed consent made difficult.
Brodeur D
Issues (St Louis Mo); 1992; 7(2):1-8. PubMed ID: 11659444
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
