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.
119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23060321)
1. The social function of clinical equipoise. Kimmelman J Clin Trials; 2012 Oct; 9(5):630-1. PubMed ID: 23060321 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Is anything lost if we give up clinical equipoise? Miller FG Clin Trials; 2012 Oct; 9(5):632-3. PubMed ID: 23060322 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. On what we will lose in giving up on clinical equipoise: A reply to Miller. van der Graaf R; van Delden JJ Clin Trials; 2012 Oct; 9(5):628-9. PubMed ID: 23060320 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Clinical equipoise and risk-benefit assessment. Miller FG Clin Trials; 2012 Oct; 9(5):621-7. PubMed ID: 22777654 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Case study. Is longer always better? Commentary. Emanuel EJ; Grady C Hastings Cent Rep; 2008; 38(3):10-1. PubMed ID: 18584850 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Have scientists met their ethical responsibility towards research participants? Srinivasan S Indian J Med Ethics; 2013; 10(4):253-4. PubMed ID: 24152350 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Screening for cervical cancer revisited: understanding implementation research. Macklin R Indian J Med Ethics; 2013; 10(4):251-3. PubMed ID: 24152349 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Case study. Is longer always better? Hastings Cent Rep; 2008; 38(3):10. PubMed ID: 18581929 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The sham surgery debate and the moral complexity of risk-benefit analysis. Kim SY Am J Bioeth; 2003; 3(4):68-70. PubMed ID: 14744342 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Ethics of "standard care" in randomised trials of screening for cervical cancer should not ignore scientific evidence and ground realities. Pramesh CS; Shastri S; Mittra I; Badwe RA Indian J Med Ethics; 2013; 10(4):250-1. PubMed ID: 24152348 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Ethics of 'standard care' in randomised controlled trials of screening for cervical cancer. Srinivasan S Indian J Med Ethics; 2013; 10(3):147-9. PubMed ID: 23912726 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Dispensing with equipoise. Miller FG Am J Med Sci; 2011 Oct; 342(4):276-81. PubMed ID: 21804362 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research revisited. Miller FG Am J Bioeth; 2006; 6(4):59-61; discussion W42-5. PubMed ID: 16885110 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Twenty-five years of therapeutic misconception. Miller FG Hastings Cent Rep; 2008; 38(2):6; author reply 6-7. PubMed ID: 18457218 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Sham surgery and genuine standards of care: can the two be reconciled? London AJ; Kadane JB Am J Bioeth; 2003; 3(4):61-4. PubMed ID: 14744339 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Clinical equipoise: actual or hypothetical disagreement? Gelfand S J Med Philos; 2013 Dec; 38(6):590-604. PubMed ID: 23878347 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Equipoise, ethics, and the necessity of randomized trials in surgery. Adibe OO; St Peter SD Arch Surg; 2012 Oct; 147(10):899-900. PubMed ID: 23070406 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Equipoise abandoned? Randomization and clinical trials. Kurzrock R; Stewart DJ Ann Oncol; 2013 Oct; 24(10):2471-2474. PubMed ID: 24072520 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]