BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

235 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12734305)

  • 1. Growing pains: central review board project still developing.
    Randal J
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2003 May; 95(9):636-7. PubMed ID: 12734305
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Who watches the watchmen?
    Nature; 2011 Aug; 476(7359):125. PubMed ID: 21833048
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Clinical Trials, Healthy Controls, and the Birth of the IRB.
    Stark L; Greene JA
    N Engl J Med; 2016 Sep; 375(11):1013-5. PubMed ID: 27626515
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Cancer trials and the Institutional Review Board (IRB).
    Kurtzman S; Lazzarini Z
    Cancer Treat Res; 2007; 132():11-30. PubMed ID: 17305015
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Extend the reach of institutional review boards first, then strengthen their depth.
    Spike J
    Am J Bioeth; 2008 Nov; 8(11):11-2. PubMed ID: 19061097
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Institutionalisation of Bulgarian ethics committees: history and current status.
    Krastev Y
    Indian J Med Ethics; 2011; 8(3):148-51. PubMed ID: 22106639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A central institutional review board for multi-institutional trials.
    Christian MC; Goldberg JL; Killen J; Abrams JS; McCabe MS; Mauer JK; Wittes RE
    N Engl J Med; 2002 May; 346(18):1405-8. PubMed ID: 11986418
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The paradoxical problem with multiple-IRB review.
    Menikoff J
    N Engl J Med; 2010 Oct; 363(17):1591-3. PubMed ID: 20942660
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Toward protecting the safety of participants in clinical trials.
    Califf RM; Morse MA; Wittes J; Goodman SN; Nelson DK; DeMets DL; Iafrate RP; Sugarman J
    Control Clin Trials; 2003 Jun; 24(3):256-71. PubMed ID: 12757992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Ethics of observational studies: are specific rules useful?].
    Rosmini F
    Epidemiol Prev; 2006; 30(4-5):295-7. PubMed ID: 17176945
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The ethics approval process for multisite research studies in Australia: changes sought by the Australian Genomics initiative.
    Haas MA; Boughtwood TF; Quinn MC;
    Med J Aust; 2019 Nov; 211(10):440-444.e1. PubMed ID: 31734945
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Transitioning to the National Institutes of Health single institutional review board model: Piloting the use of the Streamlined, Multi-site, Accelerated Resources for Trials IRB Reliance.
    Vardeny O; Hernandez AF; Cohen LW; Franklin A; Baqai M; Palmer S; Bierer BE; Cobb N
    Clin Trials; 2019 Jun; 16(3):290-296. PubMed ID: 30866676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Improving protection for research subjects.
    Steinbrook R
    N Engl J Med; 2002 May; 346(18):1425-30. PubMed ID: 11986426
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Introduction to special issue of Accountability in Research on the review and approval of biomedical research proposals: a call for a centralized national human research protections system.
    Mann H; Shamoo AE
    Account Res; 2006; 13(1):1-9. PubMed ID: 16770856
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Protecting human subjects in the NIH's Intramural Research Program: a draft instrument to evaluate convened meetings of its IRBs.
    Wichman A; Kalyan DN; Abbott LJ; Wesley R; Sandler AL
    IRB; 2006; 28(3):7-10. PubMed ID: 17036438
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Making pragmatism practicable for the institutional review board.
    Robertson C
    Am J Bioeth; 2008 Apr; 8(4):49-51. PubMed ID: 18576258
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The sex kitten of bioethics? Research ethics comes of age.
    Resink DB
    Hastings Cent Rep; 2008; 38(5):5-6. PubMed ID: 18949856
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Improving protection for human research subjects: better oversight, not just more oversight.
    Schluger NW
    Am J Bioeth; 2008 Nov; 8(11):13-5. PubMed ID: 19061098
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Canadian research ethics boards and multisite research: experiences from two minimal-risk studies.
    Racine E; Bell E; Deslauriers C
    IRB; 2010; 32(3):12-8. PubMed ID: 20590052
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Would central review streamline the clinical trials process?
    Reynolds T
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2002 Oct; 94(20):1519. PubMed ID: 12381700
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.