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 *

147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25857654)

  • 1. "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]  

  • 2. Data and tissue research without patient consent: A qualitative study of the views of research ethics committees in New Zealand.
    Ballantyne A; Moore A
    AJOB Empir Bioeth; 2018; 9(3):143-153. PubMed ID: 30407144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. What Can IRBs Learn From CABs? A Qualitative Analysis of the Experiences of Recruitment and Training of Nonscientist Members on Research Review Boards.
    Solomon Cargill S
    J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics; 2018 Feb; 13(1):88-94. PubMed ID: 29226746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. How ethics committees and requirements are structuring health research in the Philippines: a qualitative study.
    Lasco G; Yu VG; Palileo-Villanueva L
    BMC Med Ethics; 2021 Jul; 22(1):85. PubMed ID: 34210301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Recognizing Risk and Vulnerability in Research Ethics: Imagining the "What Ifs?".
    Peter E; Friedland J
    J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics; 2017 Apr; 12(2):107-116. PubMed ID: 28421885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Analysis of factors influencing the organizational capacity of Institutional Review Boards In China: a crisp-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis based on 107 cases.
    Lu L; Shi S; Liu B; Liu C
    BMC Med Ethics; 2023 Sep; 24(1):74. PubMed ID: 37749525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Extending the olive branch.
    McMurphy S; Lewis J; Boulos P
    J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics; 2013 Oct; 8(4):29-36. PubMed ID: 24169419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement: oversight of clinical research.
    American Society of Clinical Oncology
    J Clin Oncol; 2003 Jun; 21(12):2377-86. PubMed ID: 12721281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 'Ethical responsibility' or 'a whole can of worms': differences in opinion on incidental finding review and disclosure in neuroimaging research from focus group discussions with participants, parents, IRB members, investigators, physicians and community members.
    Cole C; Petree LE; Phillips JP; Shoemaker JM; Holdsworth M; Helitzer DL
    J Med Ethics; 2015 Oct; 41(10):841-7. PubMed ID: 26063579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The Practice of Research Ethics in Lebanon and Qatar: Perspectives of Researchers on Informed Consent.
    Nakkash R; Qutteina Y; Nasrallah C; Wright K; El-Alti L; Makhoul J; Al-Ali K
    J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics; 2017 Dec; 12(5):352-362. PubMed ID: 28905673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Case study on communicating with research ethics committees about minimizing risk through software: an application for record linkage in secondary data analysis.
    Schmit C; Ferdinand AO; Giannouchos T; Kum HC
    JAMIA Open; 2024 Apr; 7(1):ooae010. PubMed ID: 38425705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The evaluation of the risks and benefits of phase II cancer clinical trials by institutional review board (IRB) members: a case study.
    van Luijn HE; Aaronson NK; Keus RB; Musschenga AW
    J Med Ethics; 2006 Mar; 32(3):170-6. PubMed ID: 16507666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research?
    Shah S; Whittle A; Wilfond B; Gensler G; Wendler D
    JAMA; 2004 Jan; 291(4):476-82. PubMed ID: 14747505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Development of a Health Professions Education Research-Specific Institutional Review Board Template.
    DeMeo SD; Nagler A; Heflin MT
    Acad Med; 2016 Feb; 91(2):229-32. PubMed ID: 26535863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Views of the process and content of ethical reviews of HIV vaccine trials among members of US institutional review boards and South African research ethics committees.
    Klitzman R
    Dev World Bioeth; 2008 Dec; 8(3):207-18. PubMed ID: 19046258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. "Walking along beside the researcher": how Canadian REBs/IRBs are responding to the needs of community-based participatory research.
    Guta A; Nixon S; Gahagan J; Fielden S
    J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics; 2012 Feb; 7(1):15-25. PubMed ID: 22378131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Performance of IRBs in China: a survey on IRB employees and researchers' experiences and perceptions.
    Liu X; Wu Y; Yang M; Li Y; Khoshnood K; Luo E; Li L; Wang X
    BMC Med Ethics; 2022 Aug; 23(1):89. PubMed ID: 36038889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Implications of the Revised Common Rule for Qualitative Health Research: Opportunities, Concerns, and Recommendations.
    Owczarzak J; Smith KC
    Qual Health Res; 2022 Jan; 32(2):385-393. PubMed ID: 34874221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Confidence of IRB/REC Members in Their Assessments of Human Research Risk: A Study of IRB/REC Decision Making in Action.
    Grinnell F; Sadler JZ; McNamara V; Senetar K; Reisch J
    J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics; 2017 Jul; 12(3):140-149. PubMed ID: 28558484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.