168 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15031253)
41. The negative impact of ad hoc committees for ethical evaluation: The case of COVID-19-related research in Ecuador.
Sisa I; Mena B; Teran E
Dev World Bioeth; 2021 Mar; 21(1):3-6. PubMed ID: 33554447
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
42. A review of OHRP compliance oversight letters.
Borror K; Carome M; McNeilly P; Weil C
IRB; 2003; 25(5):1-4. PubMed ID: 14870724
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
43. A national research ethics committee?
Alderson P
Bull Med Ethics; 1995 Apr; No. 107():13-6. PubMed ID: 11654315
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
44. Ethical ethics committees?: a response.
Tildsley GJ
J Med Ethics; 2000 Aug; 26(4):289-90. PubMed ID: 11645766
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
45. Do all services provided as part of a clinical trial require research ethics and governance review?
Kenner J; Zalcberg JR
Intern Med J; 2017 Oct; 47(10):1197-1199. PubMed ID: 28994255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Ethical issues in the substantive and procedural aspects of research ethics review.
Meslin EM
Health Law Can; 1993; 13(3):179-91. PubMed ID: 10125789
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
47. The ethics of research ethics committees.
Nicholl J
BMJ; 2000 Apr; 320(7243):1217. PubMed ID: 10784570
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
48. Ethical review of multi-centre research.
Horwitz R
Bull Med Ethics; 1994 Oct; No. 102():13-5. PubMed ID: 11654130
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
49. Research ethics committees: the role of ethics in a regulatory authority.
McGuinness S
J Med Ethics; 2008 Sep; 34(9):695-700. PubMed ID: 18757644
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Professional responsibility and the protection of human subjects of research in Canada.
Dinsdale H
Health Law Rev; 2005; 13(2-3):80-5. PubMed ID: 16459419
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
51. Fees and research ethics committees.
Pickworth E; Brazier M
Bull Med Ethics; 1999 Oct; No. 151():18-20. PubMed ID: 11657986
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
52. Reviewing research involving children: the practice of British research ethics committees.
Hall D
IRB; 1988; 10(2):1-5. PubMed ID: 11650021
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
53. SACHRP recommendations for review of children's research requiring DHHS secretary's approval.
Fisher CB; Kornetsky SZ
IRB; 2005; 27(3):8-10. PubMed ID: 16021795
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
54. Assessment of the ethical review process in Sudan.
Elsayed DE; Kass NE
Dev World Bioeth; 2007 Dec; 7(3):143-8. PubMed ID: 18021119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Standards for research ethics committees: purpose, problems and the possibilities of other approaches.
Davies H; Wells F; Czarkowski M
J Med Ethics; 2009 Jun; 35(6):382-3. PubMed ID: 19482984
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Institutional review boards and institutions not doing enough to protect human subjects.
Maloney DM
Hum Res Rep; 2000 Jun; 15(6):1-3. PubMed ID: 12199292
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
57. Issues for research ethics committees: third installment.
Evans D; Crossland N; Graham I; Preece A
Bull Med Ethics; 1998 Feb; No. 135():13-6. PubMed ID: 11657246
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
58. Xenografts and scientific evaluation.
Tucker WR
IRB; 1986; 8(2):10. PubMed ID: 11649749
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
59. Genetic research and ethics.
Great Britain. Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing
Bull Med Ethics; 1999 Feb; No. 145():21-4. PubMed ID: 11657252
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
60. Research ethics review in Australia, Europe and North America.
McNeill PM
IRB; 1989; 11(3):4-7. PubMed ID: 11650207
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
