98 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21358797)
1. Response to Elizabeth Overton's comments about Ron Jones' research.
McCredie M; Jones RW
N Z Med J; 2010 Dec; 123(1327):160-3. PubMed ID: 21358797
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. A response to Ron Jones' letter of 30 April 2010.
Overton H
N Z Med J; 2010 Jul; 123(1319):113-5. PubMed ID: 20717188
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. The Cartwright Legacy.
Smith L
N Z Med J; 2010 Dec; 123(1327):164. PubMed ID: 21358798
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Chalmers, Bunkle and Bryder correspondence.
Jones RW
N Z Med J; 2010 Dec; 123(1327):157-9. PubMed ID: 21358796
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
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. 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]
11. A patient's response to recent criticisms of the findings in the report of the Cervical Cancer Inquiry 1988.
Matheson C
N Z Med J; 2010 Aug; 123(1321):95-101. PubMed ID: 20927164
[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. A response to Dr Paul Patten. Re: a particular relationship.
Paul C
N Z Med J; 2010 Aug; 123(1321):102. PubMed ID: 20927165
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Reassessing Cartwright--understanding the factual record.
Bunkle P
N Z Med J; 2010 Aug; 123(1321):88-94. PubMed ID: 20927163
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The doctor's dilemma.
Bryder L
N Z Med J; 2010 Sep; 123(1322):96-7. PubMed ID: 20930901
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Answer to NZMJ about Ron Jones' research.
Overton E
N Z Med J; 2010 Oct; 123(1324):108. PubMed ID: 20953231
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. A retrospective study: response to Dr McCredie. Re: consequences in women of participating in a study of the natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3.
Bryder L
N Z Med J; 2010 Aug; 123(1321):104. PubMed ID: 20927167
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Horror story.
Stern PN
Health Care Women Int; 1990; 11(2):v-vii. PubMed ID: 2324023
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. New Zealand's cervical screening legislation-and response.
Gray B; Lewis H; Casey D
N Z Med J; 2008 Jan; 121(1268):U2910. PubMed ID: 18256722
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
