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 *

126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22194036)

  • 21. Websites Selling Direct-to-Consumer Anti-Mullerian Hormone Tests.
    Johnson A; Thompson R; Nickel B; Shih P; Hammarberg K; Copp T
    JAMA Netw Open; 2023 Aug; 6(8):e2330192. PubMed ID: 37603332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. RECONCEPTUALIZING CONSENT FOR DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER HEALTH SERVICES.
    Spector-Bagdady K
    Am J Law Med; 2015; 41(4):568-616. PubMed ID: 26863850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Consumer Decision-Making Based on Review Websites: Are There Differences Between Choosing a Hotel and Choosing a Physician?
    Rothenfluh F; Germeni E; Schulz PJ
    J Med Internet Res; 2016 Jun; 18(6):e129. PubMed ID: 27311623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Genetic Privacy and Data Protection: A Review of Chinese Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Test Services.
    Du L; Wang M
    Front Genet; 2020; 11():416. PubMed ID: 32425986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Quantitative Information on Oncology Prescription Drug Websites.
    Sullivan HW; Aikin KJ; Squiers LB
    J Cancer Educ; 2018 Apr; 33(2):371-374. PubMed ID: 27589969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. All your data (effectively) belong to us: data practices among direct-to-consumer genetic testing firms.
    Laestadius LI; Rich JR; Auer PL
    Genet Med; 2017 May; 19(5):513-520. PubMed ID: 27657678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Informed consent in direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: the outline of a model between specific and generic consent.
    Bunnik EM; Janssens AC; Schermer MH
    Bioethics; 2014 Sep; 28(7):343-51. PubMed ID: 23137034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Miscarriage information available on the internet: a content analysis of leading consumer websites.
    Ehrenreich K; Kriz R; Grossman D
    Contracept X; 2019; 1():100010. PubMed ID: 32550527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Pharmaceutical companies and their drugs on social media: a content analysis of drug information on popular social media sites.
    Tyrawski J; DeAndrea DC
    J Med Internet Res; 2015 Jun; 17(6):e130. PubMed ID: 26032738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Designing interactivity on consumer health websites: PARAFORUM for spinal cord injury.
    Rubinelli S; Collm A; Glässel A; Diesner F; Kinast J; Stucki G; Brach M
    Patient Educ Couns; 2013 Dec; 93(3):459-63. PubMed ID: 24215943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Click yes to consent: Acceptability of incorporating informed consent into an internet-based testing program for sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections.
    Gilbert M; Bonnell A; Farrell J; Haag D; Bondyra M; Unger D; Elliot E
    Int J Med Inform; 2017 Sep; 105():38-48. PubMed ID: 28750910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Informational content, literacy demands, and usability of websites offering health-related genetic tests directly to consumers.
    Lachance CR; Erby LA; Ford BM; Allen VC; Kaphingst KA
    Genet Med; 2010 May; 12(5):304-12. PubMed ID: 20386454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. What information can the lay public find about osteoporosis treatment? A descriptive study coding the content and quality of bisphosphonate information on the internet.
    Fuzzell LN; Richards MJ; Fraenkel L; Stark SL; Politi MC
    Osteoporos Int; 2019 Nov; 30(11):2299-2310. PubMed ID: 31297567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. You want to do what? My mother's choice to have direct-to-consumer genetic testing.
    Varga EA
    J Genet Couns; 2012 Jun; 21(3):382-5. PubMed ID: 22491969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Using websites to engage consumers in managing their health and healthcare.
    Mittler JN; Volmar KM; Shaw BW; Christianson JB; Scanlon DP
    Am J Manag Care; 2012 Sep; 18(6 Suppl):s177-84. PubMed ID: 23286713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Evaluating the evidence: direct-to-consumer screening tests advertised online.
    Lovett KM; Mackey TK; Liang BA
    J Med Screen; 2012 Sep; 19(3):141-53. PubMed ID: 23093732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Family tree and ancestry inference: is there a need for a 'generational' consent?
    Wallace SE; Gourna EG; Nikolova V; Sheehan NA
    BMC Med Ethics; 2015 Dec; 16(1):87. PubMed ID: 26645273
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Public reactions to direct-to-consumer genetic health tests: A comparison across the US, UK, Japan and Australia.
    Charbonneau J; Nicol D; Chalmers D; Kato K; Yamamoto N; Walshe J; Critchley C
    Eur J Hum Genet; 2020 Mar; 28(3):339-348. PubMed ID: 31645768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Evaluating online direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic tests: informed choices or buyers beware?
    Geransar R; Einsiedel E
    Genet Test; 2008 Mar; 12(1):13-23. PubMed ID: 18373401
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The impact of risk information exposure on women's beliefs about direct-to-consumer genetic testing for BRCA mutations.
    Gray SW; Hornik RC; Schwartz JS; Armstrong K
    Clin Genet; 2012 Jan; 81(1):29-37. PubMed ID: 21992449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.