160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23881993)
1. The US Office for Human Research Protections' judgment of the SUPPORT trial seems entirely reasonable.
Pharoah PD
BMJ; 2013 Jul; 347():f4637. PubMed ID: 23881993
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. The US Office for Human Research Protections' intervention in the SUPPORT trial was indeed ill conceived.
Thornton H
BMJ; 2013 Jul; 347():f4639. PubMed ID: 23881994
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Risk, consent, and SUPPORT.
Magnus D; Caplan AL
N Engl J Med; 2013 May; 368(20):1864-5. PubMed ID: 23597408
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Informed consent and SUPPORT.
Drazen JM; Solomon CG; Greene MF
N Engl J Med; 2013 May; 368(20):1929-31. PubMed ID: 23593944
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Ethical pitfalls in neonatal comparative effectiveness trials.
Modi N
Neonatology; 2014; 105(4):350-1. PubMed ID: 24931328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. US researchers failed to disclose risks of newborn study, finds government office.
McCarthy M
BMJ; 2013 Apr; 346():f2367. PubMed ID: 23585233
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Executive summary of the workshop on oxygen in neonatal therapies: controversies and opportunities for research.
Higgins RD; Bancalari E; Willinger M; Raju TN
Pediatrics; 2007 Apr; 119(4):790-6. PubMed ID: 17403851
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Oxygen to premature births--a new scandal?].
Saugstad OD
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2013 Oct; 133(19):2062-4. PubMed ID: 24129538
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. [When the information provided to participants of a comparative effectiveness trial ends up in the court: The opening of Pandora's box?].
Dal-Ré R; Omeñaca F; Gracia D
Med Clin (Barc); 2016 Jul; 147(2):76-80. PubMed ID: 26961391
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. An Ethical Analysis of the SUPPORT Trial: Addressing Challenges Posed by a Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Randomized Controlled Trial.
Horn AR; Weijer C; Grimshaw J; Brehaut J; Fergusson D; Goldstein CE; Taljaard M
Kennedy Inst Ethics J; 2018; 28(1):85-118. PubMed ID: 29628452
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. What do we aim for? Oxygen saturation targets in extremely preterm infants.
Fidler HL
Adv Neonatal Care; 2011 Dec; 11(6):404-5. PubMed ID: 22123472
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Vindication for SUPPORT.
Lantos JD
N Engl J Med; 2015 Oct; 373(15):1393-5. PubMed ID: 26332442
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. What Is Reasonably Foreseeable? Lessons Learned From the SUPPORT Trial.
Trifiletti DM; Showalter TN; Shepherd L
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2015 Jul; 92(4):718-20. PubMed ID: 26104926
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Is there a strategy for preventing bronchopulmonary dysplasia? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Aly H
Pediatrics; 2007 Apr; 119(4):818-20. PubMed ID: 17403854
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. [02-treatment in the neonatal period. Viewpoints with reference to a case of the Wilson-Mikity syndrome and retrolental fibroplasia].
Finnström O
Nord Med; 1969 Nov; 82(47):1471-4. PubMed ID: 5395521
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Sustained hyperoxemia without cicatricial retrolental fibroplasia.
Aranda JV; Sweet AY
Pediatrics; 1974 Oct; 54(4):434-7. PubMed ID: 4479292
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Oxygen therapy in the newborn infant. Fetus and Newborn Committee. Canadian Paediatric Society.
Can Med Assoc J; 1975 Oct; 113(8):750-1, 763. PubMed ID: 803126
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Oxygen-saturation targets in extremely preterm infants.
Carlo WA; Bell EF; Walsh MC;
N Engl J Med; 2013 May; 368(20):1949-50. PubMed ID: 23593943
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. RLF v. brain damage: scylla or charybdis.
Feldman WS
Leg Aspects Med Pract; 1978 Jan; 6(1):33-6. PubMed ID: 582051
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. The resurgence of retrolental fibroplasia.
De Leon AS; Elliott JH; Jones DB
Pediatr Clin North Am; 1970 May; 17(2):309-22. PubMed ID: 5467800
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
