24 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16492175)
1. A perspective on scientific peer review for informing regulatory decisions: making sure peer review makes a difference.
Greenbaum D
Risk Anal; 2006 Feb; 26(1):17-9. PubMed ID: 16492174
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Commentary on scientific peer review to inform regulatory decision making: roles and perspectives of scientists.
Omenn GS
Risk Anal; 2006 Feb; 26(1):37-9. PubMed ID: 16492178
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Commentary on "scientific peer review to inform regulatory decision making: leadership responsibilities and cautions".
Yosie TF
Risk Anal; 2006 Feb; 26(1):41-3. PubMed ID: 16492179
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Scientific peer review to inform regulatory decision making: leadership responsibilities and cautions.
Patton DE; Olin SS
Risk Anal; 2006 Feb; 26(1):5-16. PubMed ID: 16492173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Legislating peer review in the Endangered Species Act.
Male T
Risk Anal; 2006 Feb; 26(1):33-5. PubMed ID: 16492177
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Policy decision-making under scientific uncertainty: radiological risk assessment and the role of expert advisory groups.
Mossman KL
Health Phys; 2009 Aug; 97(2):101-6. PubMed ID: 19590269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Better environmental decision making - recent progress and future trends.
Pollard SJ; Davies GJ; Coley F; Lemon M
Sci Total Environ; 2008 Aug; 400(1-3):20-31. PubMed ID: 18774589
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Decision-making in priority setting for medicines--a review of empirical studies.
Vuorenkoski L; Toiviainen H; Hemminki E
Health Policy; 2008 Apr; 86(1):1-9. PubMed ID: 17950484
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Speaking the right language: the scientific method as a framework for a continuous quality improvement program within academic medical research compliance units.
Nolte KB; Stewart DM; O'Hair KC; Gannon WL; Briggs MS; Barron AM; Pointer J; Larson RS
Acad Med; 2008 Oct; 83(10):941-8. PubMed ID: 18820524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. An ethical appraisal of hormesis: toward a rational discourse on the acceptability of risks and benefits.
Renn O
Hum Exp Toxicol; 2008 Aug; 27(8):627-42. PubMed ID: 19029259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Scientific peer-review processes in setting environmental quality standards in Japan.
Ikeda S; Uchiyama I
Risk Anal; 2006 Feb; 26(1):21-3. PubMed ID: 16492175
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
