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.
130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25123670)
41. Vulnerability in research ethics: a way forward. Lange MM; Rogers W; Dodds S Bioethics; 2013 Jul; 27(6):333-40. PubMed ID: 23718774 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Ethical review of research involving human subjects: when and why is IRB review necessary? Wagner RM Muscle Nerve; 2003 Jul; 28(1):27-39. PubMed ID: 12811770 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. "There Are No Known Benefits . . .": Considering the Risk/Benefit Ratio of Qualitative Research. Opsal T; Wolgemuth J; Cross J; Kaanta T; Dickmann E; Colomer S; Erdil-Moody Z Qual Health Res; 2016 Jul; 26(8):1137-50. PubMed ID: 25857654 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. A 12-year audit of IRB decisions. Grodin MA; Zaharoff BE; Kaminow PV QRB Qual Rev Bull; 1986 Mar; 12(3):82-6. PubMed ID: 3085041 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Current issues in clinical research and the development of new pharmaceuticals. Goldhammer A Account Res; 2001; 8(4):283-91. PubMed ID: 12481798 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Quantifying the federal minimal risk standard: implications for pediatric research without a prospect of direct benefit. Wendler D; Belsky L; Thompson KM; Emanuel EJ JAMA; 2005 Aug; 294(7):826-32. PubMed ID: 16106008 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Health service research: the square peg in human subjects protection regulations. Gittner LS; Roach MJ; Kikano G; Grey S; Dawson NV J Med Ethics; 2011 Feb; 37(2):118-22. PubMed ID: 21071571 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Are risks and benefits of oncological research protocols both incommensurable and incompensable? Musschenga AW; Van Luijn HE; Keus RB; Aaronson NK Account Res; 2007; 14(3):179-96. PubMed ID: 17877107 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Protecting the Vulnerable and Including the Under-Represented: IRB Practices and Attitudes. Gelinas L; Strauss DH; Chen Y; Ahmed HR; Kirby A; Friesen P; Bierer BE J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics; 2023; 18(1-2):58-68. PubMed ID: 36476180 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Current status of the institutional review boards in Korea: constitution, operation, and policy for protection of human research participants. Kim OJ; Park BJ; Sohn DR; Lee SM; Shin SG J Korean Med Sci; 2003 Feb; 18(1):3-10. PubMed ID: 12589079 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. HIPAA and what institutional review boards (IRBs) do not have to review. Maloney DM Hum Res Rep; 2003 Dec; 18(12):1-2. PubMed ID: 15027429 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
53. Ethical considerations in planning and conducting research on human subjects. Sieber JE Acad Med; 1993 Sep; 68(9 Suppl):S9-13. PubMed ID: 8373498 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Local IRBs vs. federal agencies: shifting dynamics, systems, and relationships. Klitzman RL J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics; 2012 Jul; 7(3):50-62. PubMed ID: 22850143 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Individual genetic and genomic research results and the tradition of informed consent: exploring US review board guidance. Simon C; Shinkunas LA; Brandt D; Williams JK J Med Ethics; 2012 Jul; 38(7):417-22. PubMed ID: 22361295 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Research involving children: regulations, review boards and reform. Gandhi R J Health Care Law Policy; 2005; 8(2):264-330. PubMed ID: 16471026 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
57. IRB Policies for Obtaining Informed Consent from Non-English-Speaking People. McMillan G Ethics Hum Res; 2020 May; 42(3):21-29. PubMed ID: 32421949 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Ethical and institutional review board issues. Skolnick BE Adv Neurol; 1998; 76():253-62. PubMed ID: 9408484 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Research consent for cognitively impaired adults: recommendations for institutional review boards and investigators. Alzheimer's Association Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord; 2004; 18(3):171-5. PubMed ID: 15494623 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Perspectives of Singaporean biomedical researchers and research support staff on actual and ideal IRB review functions and characteristics: A quantitative analysis. Labude MK; Shen L; Zhu Y; Schaefer GO; Ong C; Xafis V PLoS One; 2020; 15(12):e0241783. PubMed ID: 33382683 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]