136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21678214)
1. Regulating "higher risk, no direct benefit" studies in minors.
Westra AE; Wit JM; Sukhai RN; de Beaufort ID
Am J Bioeth; 2011 Jun; 11(6):29-31. PubMed ID: 21678214
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Response to Open Peer Commentaries on "Relative versus absolute standards for everyday risk in adolescent HIV prevention trials: expanding the debate".
Snyder J; Miller CL; Gray G
Am J Bioeth; 2011 Jun; 11(6):W1-3. PubMed ID: 21678202
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Minimal risk remains an open question.
Binik A; Weijer C; Sheehan M
Am J Bioeth; 2011 Jun; 11(6):25-7. PubMed ID: 21678212
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Uniqueness, exploitation, and relative risk standards in adolescent research.
Malek J
Am J Bioeth; 2011 Jun; 11(6):23-5. PubMed ID: 21678211
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. (Un)risky business: adolescents and HIV prevention trials.
Philpott S
Am J Bioeth; 2011 Jun; 11(6):17-9. PubMed ID: 21678207
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Why we don't need a relative risk standard for adolescent HIV vaccine trials in South Africa.
Slack CM
Am J Bioeth; 2011 Jun; 11(6):21-2. PubMed ID: 21678209
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. A relative standard for minimal risk is unnecessary and potentially harmful to children: lessons from the Phambili trial.
Nelson RM
Am J Bioeth; 2011 Jun; 11(6):14-6. PubMed ID: 21678206
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. The concept of minimal risk: the need for better guidance on the ethics review process.
Wada K
Am J Bioeth; 2011 Jun; 11(6):27-9. PubMed ID: 21678213
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Reopening old divisions.
Resnik DB
Am J Bioeth; 2011 Jun; 11(6):19-21. PubMed ID: 21678208
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The dangers of using a relative risk standard for minimal risk.
Shah S
Am J Bioeth; 2011 Jun; 11(6):22-3. PubMed ID: 21678210
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Relative versus absolute standards for everyday risk in adolescent HIV prevention trials: expanding the debate.
Snyder J; Miller CL; Gray G
Am J Bioeth; 2011 Jun; 11(6):5-13. PubMed ID: 21678205
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Is risky pediatric research without prospect of direct benefit ever justified?
Martin RA; Robert JS
Am J Bioeth; 2007 Mar; 7(3):12-5. PubMed ID: 17366221
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
