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 *

299 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24475542)

  • 61. RU-486: legal and policy issues confronting the Food and Drug Administration.
    Muhl C
    J Leg Med; 1993 Jun; 14(2):319-47. PubMed ID: 8340714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. Export of pharmaceuticals and medical devices under the federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act: FDA's striking change in interpretation post-Shelhigh.
    Basile EM; Tolomeo D; Gluck E
    Food Drug Law J; 2009; 64(1):149-69. PubMed ID: 19998744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. The FDA may not regulate tobacco products as "drugs" or as "medical devices".
    Merrill RA
    Duke Law J; 1998 Apr; 47(6):1071-94. PubMed ID: 10557545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. Unlabeled drug samples and the learned intermediary: the case for drug company liability without preemption.
    Poser S
    Food Drug Law J; 2007; 62(4):653-94. PubMed ID: 18557225
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. Preemption and medical devices: a response to Adler and Mann.
    Hermann M; Ritts GJ
    Food Drug Law J; 1996; 51(1):1-19. PubMed ID: 11794345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. Exemption from federal preemption of state and local cigarette and smokeless tobacco requirements; revocation. Food and Drug Administration, HHS. Final rule.
    Fed Regist; 2000 Nov; 65(216):66636. PubMed ID: 11503697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. The deregulatory effects of preempting tort litigation: FDA regulation of medical devices.
    Gostin LO
    JAMA; 2008 May; 299(19):2313-6. PubMed ID: 18492972
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Your business in court: 2009-2010.
    Reiss JB; Hall CR; Wartman GJ
    Food Drug Law J; 2011; 66(2):139-81, i. PubMed ID: 24505838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. A Daubert motion: a legal strategy to exclude essential scientific evidence in toxic tort litigation.
    Melnick RL
    Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S30-4. PubMed ID: 16030335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Medical devices; preemption of state product liability claims--FDA. Withdrawal of proposed rule.
    Fed Regist; 1998 Jul; 63(142):39789-90. PubMed ID: 10181516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. FDA proposes more stringent pediatric-use labeling of prescription drug products.
    Clin Pharm; 1993 Jan; 12(1):6. PubMed ID: 8428434
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. The case against differential diagnosis: Daubert, medical causation testimony, and the scientific method.
    Hollingsworth JG; Lasker EG
    J Health Law; 2004; 37(1):85-111. PubMed ID: 15191237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. Who is now responsible for discovering and warning about adverse effects of generic drugs?
    Kesselheim AS; Green MD; Avorn J
    JAMA; 2013 Sep; 310(10):1023-4. PubMed ID: 23922000
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. The learned intermediary doctrine and patient package inserts: a balanced approach to preventing drug-related injury.
    Paytash CA
    Stanford Law Rev; 1999 May; 51(5):1343-71. PubMed ID: 10558426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.: revisiting pre-emption for medical devices.
    Patsner B
    J Law Med Ethics; 2009; 37(2):305-17. PubMed ID: 19493075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Pharmaceutical promotion to physicians and First Amendment rights.
    Kesselheim AS; Avorn J
    N Engl J Med; 2008 Apr; 358(16):1727-32. PubMed ID: 18420505
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. Unsettling drug patent settlements: a framework for presumptive illegality.
    Carrier MA
    Mich Law Rev; 2009 Oct; 108(1):37-80. PubMed ID: 20535881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Discovery rule in medical malpractice under the Federal Tort Claims Act: the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Kubrick was not meant to be secondary authority.
    Zajdel C
    J Contemp Health Law Policy; 2004; 20(2):443-66. PubMed ID: 15239365
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Intellectual property. Drug patents at the Supreme Court.
    Hemphill CS; Sampat B
    Science; 2013 Mar; 339(6126):1386-7. PubMed ID: 23520096
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Implications of the Lannett and Pharmadyne decisions.
    Vetrano AJ
    Am J Hosp Pharm; 1980 Apr; 37(4):537-40. PubMed ID: 7377217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.