753 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11653359)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. An even safer safety net.
Prentice E
Hastings Cent Rep; 1997; 27(3):46. PubMed ID: 11644996
[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. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. In case of emergency: no need for consent.
Brody BA; Katz J; Dula A
Hastings Cent Rep; 1997; 27(1):7; discussion 7-12. PubMed ID: 9017409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. New human subject regulations would change certain IRB reviews.
Maloney DM
Hum Res Rep; 1998 Jul; 13(7):1-2. PubMed ID: 11656820
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. OPRR and FDA propose revised expedited review categories.
McGough H
IRB; 1998; 20(1):9, 11. PubMed ID: 11655326
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. The FDA's final regulations: IRBs and medical devices.
Holder AR
IRB; 1980; 2(6):1-4. PubMed ID: 11661803
[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. An overview of FDA, IRBs and regulations.
Petricciani JC
IRB; 1981 Dec; 3(10):1-3, 11. PubMed ID: 11649413
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
