132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20717186)
1. Why did so many women develop cancer? Part 2.
Jones RW
N Z Med J; 2010 Jul; 123(1319):106-7; author reply 107-8. PubMed ID: 20717186
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Congratulations to the NZMJ for the Unfortunate Experiment theme issue.
Sandercock J; Burls A
N Z Med J; 2010 Aug; 123(1320):119-20. PubMed ID: 20720615
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. The 1987 National Women's Hospital (NWH) 'Unfortunate Experiment'. Accusations of unethical experiments and undertreatment, resulting in excess deaths from cervical cancer. Facts and fables.
Overton GH
N Z Med J; 2010 Jul; 123(1319):101-5. PubMed ID: 20717185
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Why won't defenders of the Cartwright Inquiry provide evidence to justify their use of the term 'conventional treatment' for carcinoma in situ?
Chalmers I
N Z Med J; 2010 Jul; 123(1319):109-12. PubMed ID: 20717187
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. No new evidence on the cervical cancer study.
Paul C; Holloway L
N Z Med J; 1990 Dec; 103(903):581-3. PubMed ID: 2255455
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. The missing manuscript.
Frizelle FA
N Z Med J; 2010 Jul; 123(1319):11-3. PubMed ID: 20717173
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Defendants of the Cartwright Inquiry are unable to provide a description of 'adequate care' for cervical carcinoma in situ.
Chalmers I
N Z Med J; 2010 Sep; 123(1322):85-7. PubMed ID: 20930897
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. The Unfortunate Experiment debate: Manning response to Chalmers.
Manning J
N Z Med J; 2010 Aug; 123(1320):113-4. PubMed ID: 20720612
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Confusion surrounding the unfortunate experiment.
Overton E
N Z Med J; 2010 Sep; 123(1323):84. PubMed ID: 20930918
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. A response to Professor Bryder's comments on 'Consequences in women of participating in a study of the natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3'.
McCredie M
N Z Med J; 2010 Aug; 123(1320):115-7. PubMed ID: 20720613
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Response to the Missing Manuscript editorial.
Richardson A
N Z Med J; 2010 Aug; 123(1320):118. PubMed ID: 20720614
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. A response to Ms Sandercock and Dr Burls regarding the methods used in the analysis for our first paper 'Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women diagnosed with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3'.
McCredie M
N Z Med J; 2010 Aug; 123(1321):105-7. PubMed ID: 20927168
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. [Evaluation of worldwide diagnosis and treatment of cancer of the uterine cervix].
Klimek R
Przegl Lek; 1992; 49(3):92-4. PubMed ID: 1438903
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The progression of pre-invasive lesions of the cervix to invasion.
Green GH
N Z Med J; 1974 Oct; 80(525):279-87. PubMed ID: 4531563
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Medical texts on gender, sexuality, and sport in Norway, 1890-1950: changing metaphors on femininities and masculinities.
Lippe GV
J Sport Hist; 2000; 27(3):481-95. PubMed ID: 19317036
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. [The body of the "socialist woman": models of womanhood in the Soviet occupation zone and the early years of East Germany].
Budde GF
Gesch Ges; 2000; 26(4):602-28. PubMed ID: 19127693
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Clinical research after Auckland.
Gerber P; Coppleson M
Med J Aust; 1989 Mar; 150(5):230-3. PubMed ID: 2716616
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Dr Tan Cheng Im (1926-2010).
Teoh ES
Singapore Med J; 2010 Jun; 51(6):526. PubMed ID: 20658116
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Research into the Cartwright Inquiry.
Bryder L
N Z Med J; 2009 Jan; 122(1288):114-5. PubMed ID: 19182853
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. [Toilet of the portio: a reliable technic for the diagnosis and treatment of cervical lesions].
Blanda A; Gambaro C
Minerva Ginecol; 1987 Oct; 39(10):723-6. PubMed ID: 3431740
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
