These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21423343)

  • 1. How can institutional review boards best interpret preclinical data?
    Lavery JV
    PLoS Med; 2011 Mar; 8(3):e1001011. PubMed ID: 21423343
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Predicting harms and benefits in translational trials: ethics, evidence, and uncertainty.
    Kimmelman J; London AJ
    PLoS Med; 2011 Mar; 8(3):e1001010. PubMed ID: 21423344
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Extend the reach of institutional review boards first, then strengthen their depth.
    Spike J
    Am J Bioeth; 2008 Nov; 8(11):11-2. PubMed ID: 19061097
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Improving the decision processes of institutional review boards.
    Wagner TH
    JAMA; 2004 Apr; 291(14):1698; author reply 1698-9. PubMed ID: 15082694
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Research involving children: regulations, review boards and reform.
    Gandhi R
    J Health Care Law Policy; 2005; 8(2):264-330. PubMed ID: 16471026
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The future of institutional review boards.
    Ghersi D; Campbell EG; Pentz R; Cox Macpherson C
    Lancet Oncol; 2004 May; 5(5):325-9. PubMed ID: 15120672
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The Challenges of First-in-Human Stem Cell Clinical Trials: What Does This Mean for Ethics and Institutional Review Boards?
    Barker RA; Carpenter MK; Forbes S; Goldman SA; Jamieson C; Murry CE; Takahashi J; Weir G
    Stem Cell Reports; 2018 May; 10(5):1429-1431. PubMed ID: 29742388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Making pragmatism practicable for the institutional review board.
    Robertson C
    Am J Bioeth; 2008 Apr; 8(4):49-51. PubMed ID: 18576258
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. For institutional review boards, decisions can be subjective.
    Reynolds T
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2002 Oct; 94(20):1518-20. PubMed ID: 12381699
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Points to consider: The research ethics consultation service and the IRB.
    Beskow LM; Grady C; Iltis AS; Sadler JZ; Wilfond BS
    IRB; 2009; 31(6):1-9. PubMed ID: 20034184
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Patients come from populations and populations contain patients. A two-stage scientific and ethics review: The next adaptation for single institutional review boards.
    Knopman D; Alford E; Tate K; Long M; Khachaturian AS
    Alzheimers Dement; 2017 Aug; 13(8):940-946. PubMed ID: 28709585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. How research ethics boards should monitor clinical research.
    Apau Bediako R; Kaposy C
    Account Res; 2020 Jan; 27(1):49-56. PubMed ID: 31847591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Considerations in the evaluation and determination of minimal risk in pragmatic clinical trials.
    Lantos JD; Wendler D; Septimus E; Wahba S; Madigan R; Bliss G
    Clin Trials; 2015 Oct; 12(5):485-93. PubMed ID: 26374686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Assessing the case for the regulation of research.
    Wilkinson T
    Am J Bioeth; 2010 Aug; 10(8):63-5. PubMed ID: 20694915
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Responses to open peer commentaries on "research exceptionalism".
    Hunter D; Wilson J
    Am J Bioeth; 2010 Aug; 10(8):W4-6. PubMed ID: 20694896
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Forthcoming practical framework for ethics committees and researchers on post-trial access to the trial intervention and healthcare.
    Sofaer N; Lewis P; Davies H
    J Med Ethics; 2014 Apr; 40(4):217-8. PubMed ID: 23645524
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Assessing risk/benefit for trials using preclinical evidence: a proposal.
    Kimmelman J; Henderson V
    J Med Ethics; 2016 Jan; 42(1):50-3. PubMed ID: 26463620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Views of the process and content of ethical reviews of HIV vaccine trials among members of US institutional review boards and South African research ethics committees.
    Klitzman R
    Dev World Bioeth; 2008 Dec; 8(3):207-18. PubMed ID: 19046258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Institutional review boards should require clinical trial registration.
    Levin LA; Palmer JG
    Arch Intern Med; 2007 Aug 13-27; 167(15):1576-80. PubMed ID: 17698679
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Communicating the results of clinical research to participants: attitudes, practices, and future directions.
    Shalowitz DI; Miller FG
    PLoS Med; 2008 May; 5(5):e91. PubMed ID: 18479180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.