194 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18180419)
1. Empirical data and the acceptability of research risk: a commentary on the charitable participation standard.
Reynolds WW; Nelson RM
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med; 2008 Jan; 162(1):88-90. PubMed ID: 18180419
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Children's and their parents' views on facing research risks for the benefit of others.
Wendler D; Jenkins T
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med; 2008 Jan; 162(1):9-14. PubMed ID: 18180406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Justifying pediatric research not expected to benefit child subjects.
Spriggs M
Am J Bioeth; 2012; 12(1):42-4. PubMed ID: 22220961
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. A new justification for pediatric research without the potential for clinical benefit.
Wendler D
Am J Bioeth; 2012; 12(1):23-31. PubMed ID: 22220955
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A more persuasive justification for pediatric research.
Litton P
Am J Bioeth; 2012; 12(1):44-6. PubMed ID: 22220962
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Consent to pediatric research: a couple of distinctions.
Petrini C
Am J Bioeth; 2012; 12(1):37-8. PubMed ID: 22220958
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. On justifying pediatric research without the prospect of clinical benefit.
Kopelman LM
Am J Bioeth; 2012; 12(1):32-4. PubMed ID: 22220956
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. On Wendler's new justification for pediatric research.
Wachbroit R
Am J Bioeth; 2012; 12(1):40-2. PubMed ID: 22220960
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Why even inappropriate parental consent might be enough to justify minimal risk pediatric research without clinical benefit.
Hunter D
Am J Bioeth; 2012; 12(1):35-6. PubMed ID: 22220957
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Twenty-five years of therapeutic misconception.
Miller FG
Hastings Cent Rep; 2008; 38(2):6; author reply 6-7. PubMed ID: 18457218
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. From the mouths of babes: a response to "Should children decide whether they are enrolled in nonbeneficial research?" by David Wendler and Seema Shah.
Trachtman H
Am J Bioeth; 2003; 3(4):W35. PubMed ID: 14744326
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Assessing research risks systematically: the net risks test.
Wendler D; Miller FG
J Med Ethics; 2007 Aug; 33(8):481-6. PubMed ID: 17664310
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Pediatric research and the federal minimal risk standard.
Ross LF; Nelson RM
JAMA; 2006 Feb; 295(7):759; author reply 759-60. PubMed ID: 16478898
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Clinical research with healthy volunteers: an ethical framework.
Miller FG
J Investig Med; 2003 Feb; 51 Suppl 1():S2-5. PubMed ID: 12664947
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The context of clinical research and its ethical relevance: the COMPAS trial as a case study.
Camporesi S; Mameli M
Am J Bioeth; 2012; 12(1):39-40. PubMed ID: 22220959
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Subject selection for clinical trials.
American Medical Association. Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs
IRB; 1998; 20(2-3):12-5. PubMed ID: 11656913
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Therapeutic misconception and the appreciation of risks in clinical trials.
Lidz CW; Appelbaum PS; Grisso T; Renaud M
Soc Sci Med; 2004 May; 58(9):1689-97. PubMed ID: 14990370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 'Stutterers' sue over research study.
Bull Med Ethics; 2003 Sep; (191):3-4. PubMed ID: 16206436
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Protecting subjects who cannot give consent: toward a better standard for "minimal" risks.
Wendler D
Hastings Cent Rep; 2005; 35(5):37-43. PubMed ID: 16295263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Medical studies and the average American kid.
Weiss R
Washington Post; 2005 Aug; ():A5. PubMed ID: 16138447
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
