92 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2324023)
1. Horror story.
Stern PN
Health Care Women Int; 1990; 11(2):v-vii. PubMed ID: 2324023
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Cervical cancer study.
Skrabanek P
N Z Med J; 1991 Feb; 104(906):77-8. PubMed ID: 2020452
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The Cartwright report.
Mackay M
N Z Med J; 1991 Mar; 104(908):125. PubMed ID: 2011297
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Defendants of the Cartwright Inquiry are unable to provide a description of 'adequate care' for cervical carcinoma in situ.
Chalmers I
N Z Med J; 2010 Sep; 123(1322):85-7. PubMed ID: 20930897
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Why did so many women develop cancer? Part 2.
Jones RW
N Z Med J; 2010 Jul; 123(1319):106-7; author reply 107-8. PubMed ID: 20717186
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Research into the Cartwright Inquiry.
Bryder L
N Z Med J; 2009 Jan; 122(1288):114-5. PubMed ID: 19182853
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. The doctor's dilemma.
Bryder L
N Z Med J; 2010 Sep; 123(1322):96-7. PubMed ID: 20930901
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Clare Matheson protests too much.
Smith V
N Z Med J; 2010 Sep; 123(1322):88-90. PubMed ID: 20930898
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Confusion surrounding the unfortunate experiment.
Overton E
N Z Med J; 2010 Sep; 123(1323):84. PubMed ID: 20930918
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Will exercising informed consent stop "unfortunate experiments"?
Young D
Birth; 2005 Mar; 32(1):1-3. PubMed ID: 15725198
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Colposcopy and the conservative management of cervical dysplasia and carcinoma in situ.
Chanen W; Hollyock VE
Obstet Gynecol; 1974 Apr; 43(4):527-34. PubMed ID: 4817004
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. [Organization of inpatient care of carcinoma in situ in East Germany 1973-1978].
Sauerteig KH; Blumenthal-Barby CC; Blumenthal-Barby K
Z Gesamte Hyg; 1982 Aug; 28(8):554-7. PubMed ID: 7136066
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Management of squamous intraepithelial lesions of indeterminate grade.
Saab BA; Austin RM
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Sep; 199(3):e13-4; author reply e14. PubMed ID: 18456230
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. [Carcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix---a clinical analysis of 166 cases (author's transl)].
Tsai FC
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 1980 Jul; 15(3):183-5. PubMed ID: 7472019
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
