152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15031252)
1. Ethics review in research: role of ethics committee review is interpreted widely.
Beales IL
BMJ; 2004 Mar; 328(7441):710. PubMed ID: 15031252
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Ethics review in research: ethics committees are risk averse.
Minnis HJ
BMJ; 2004 Mar; 328(7441):710-1. PubMed ID: 15031253
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Research ethics committees; good clinical practice; advance directives.
Bull Med Ethics; 2005; (209):8-11. PubMed ID: 16830431
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Ethics review in research: time has come for reassessment.
McKee M
BMJ; 2004 Mar; 328(7441):711. PubMed ID: 15031254
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. A Framework for Assessing Scientific Merit in Ethical Review of Clinical Research.
Binik A; Hey SP
Ethics Hum Res; 2019 Mar; 41(2):2-13. PubMed ID: 30895755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The need to understand IRB deliberations.
Candilis PJ; Lidz CW; Arnold RM
IRB; 2006; 28(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 16680872
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. An applied and qualitative LREC reflects on its practice.
West E; Butler J
Bull Med Ethics; 2003 Feb; (185):13-20. PubMed ID: 14983852
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of requirements of research ethics committees in 11 European countries for a non-invasive interventional study.
Hearnshaw H
BMJ; 2004 Jan; 328(7432):140-1. PubMed ID: 14726341
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Research ethics committees: differences and moral judgement.
Edwards SJ; Ashcroft R; Kirchin S
Bioethics; 2004 Sep; 18(5):408-27. PubMed ID: 15462024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The task for ethics review: should research ethics boards address an approach or a paradigm?
Nelson CH; McPherson DH
NCEHR Commun; 2004; 12(2):11-22. PubMed ID: 15460563
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Ethics review needs to grow up.
Nicholson RH
Hastings Cent Rep; 2002; 32(3):8. PubMed ID: 12085519
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Bureaucracy of ethics applications.
Wald DS
BMJ; 2004 Jul; 329(7460):282-4. PubMed ID: 15284157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The ethical bureaucracy.
Martyn C
QJM; 2003 May; 96(5):323-4. PubMed ID: 12702780
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Applying for ethical approval for research: the main issues.
Gelling L
Nurs Stand; 2016 Jan; 30(20):40-4. PubMed ID: 26758167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Measuring inconsistency in research ethics committee review.
Trace S; Kolstoe SE
BMC Med Ethics; 2017 Nov; 18(1):65. PubMed ID: 29179709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Two deaths and two lessons: is it time to review the structure and function of research ethics committees?
Savulescu J
J Med Ethics; 2002 Feb; 28(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 11834747
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Status of ethical review and challenges in India.
Muthuswamy V
Indian Pediatr; 2005 Dec; 42(12):1189-90. PubMed ID: 16424554
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Research oversight through new lenses: the consortium to examine clinical research ethics.
Sugarman J; Eckenwiler LA; Emanuel EJ
IRB; 2003; 25(1):9-10. PubMed ID: 12833899
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. The reform of UK research ethics committees: throwing the baby out with the bath water?
Kerrison S; Pollock AM
J Med Ethics; 2005 Aug; 31(8):487-9. PubMed ID: 16076976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
