388 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11654755)
1. Exempt research: procedures in the intramural research program of the National Institutes of Health.
Wichman A; Mills D; Sandler AL
IRB; 1996; 18(2):3-5. PubMed ID: 11654755
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Special informed consent requirements are included in protocol review procedures.
Maloney DM
Hum Res Rep; 1995 Jul; 10(7):1-2. PubMed ID: 11654274
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The regulation of human experimentation in the United States--a personal odyssey.
Katz J
IRB; 1987; 9(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 11649890
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Research compliance changes will affect rules on protection of human subjects.
Maloney DM
Hum Res Rep; 1999 May; 14(5):1-2. PubMed ID: 11657776
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Ethical issues in clinical neurological research.
Shore D; Berg K; Mullican C
J Calif Alliance Ment Ill; 1994; 5(1):61-2. PubMed ID: 11653329
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Institutional animal care and use committees.
Britt DP
ATLA Abstr; 1986 Mar; 13(3):236-9. PubMed ID: 11649839
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Annual review: observed deficiencies and suggested corrections.
Adams MS; Conrad DA
IRB; 1996; 18(6):1-4. PubMed ID: 11654743
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The history of institutional review boards.
Sherman M; Van Vleet JD
Regul Aff J; 1991; 3():615-27. PubMed ID: 11651491
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Continuing review of research involving human subjects: approach to the problem and remaining areas of concern.
Gordon B; Prentice E
IRB; 1997; 19(2):8-11. PubMed ID: 11655323
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Revising human subjects policy: an example of consensual decision-making.
Cohen JM; Hedberg WB
J Soc Res Adm; 1984; 15(4):29-34. PubMed ID: 11649707
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. NIH guidelines for research involving recombinant DNA molecules.
Wilson DJ
Account Res; 1993; 3(2-3):177-85. PubMed ID: 11652293
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Ethics lobby forces rethink on growth hormones.
Miller SK
New Sci; 1992 Aug; 135(1834):9. PubMed ID: 11659508
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. The IRB's role in assessing the generalizability of non-NIH-funded clinical trials.
Weijer C
IRB; 1998; 20(2-3):1-5. PubMed ID: 11656912
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Government guinea pigs.
Rothman DJ
N Y Times Web; 1994 Jan; ():E21. PubMed ID: 11646304
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Medical and psychological experimentation on California prisoners.
Herch F; Flower R
Univ Calif Davis Law Rev; 1974; 7():351-84. PubMed ID: 11661107
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Toward a more comprehensive approach to protecting human subjects: the interface of data safety monitoring boards and institutional review boards in randomized clinical trials.
Gordon VM; Sugarman J; Kass N
IRB; 1998; 20(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 11655324
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
