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.
87 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6888444)
1. The acceptance of scientific evidence in the courts. Curran WJ N Engl J Med; 1983 Sep; 309(12):713-4. PubMed ID: 6888444 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Scientific evidence and the courts. Field TG Science; 1993 Dec; 262(5140):1629-30. PubMed ID: 8110275 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Scientific expert testimony and intellectual due process. Brewer S Yale Law J; 1998 Apr; 107(6):1535-681. PubMed ID: 10183366 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Science v. law. A decade-old rule on scientific evidence comes under fire. Brickley P Sci Am; 2003 Dec; 289(6):30-2. PubMed ID: 14631724 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Neurolitigation: a perspective on the elements of expert testimony for extending the Daubert challenge. Klee CH; Friedman HJ NeuroRehabilitation; 2001; 16(2):79-85. PubMed ID: 11568465 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Scientific evidence and the courts. Dreyfuss R; Nelkin D Science; 1993 Dec; 262(5140):1631. PubMed ID: 8259499 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Many courts still Frye scientific evidence. Deftos L Science; 2002 Aug; 297(5585):1275-6; author reply 1275-6. PubMed ID: 12194174 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals: a new standard for scientific evidence in the courts? Zonana H Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 1994; 22(3):309-25. PubMed ID: 7841504 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The doctor as expert witness. Awerbuch M Med J Aust; 1993 Aug; 159(3):206-8. PubMed ID: 8336624 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Scientific Trials-In the Laboratories, Not the Courts. Bagley N; Carroll AE; Cohen PA JAMA Intern Med; 2018 Jan; 178(1):7-8. PubMed ID: 29114742 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Trial technique: preparation and presentation of medical evidence. Lane F Med Trial Tech Q; 1979; 25(4):451-73. PubMed ID: 542106 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. When scientific data become legal evidence. Frey HS Science; 2009 Apr; 324(5925):335-6; author reply 335-6. PubMed ID: 19372413 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders in the courts. Shuman DW Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 1989; 17(1):25-32. PubMed ID: 2706331 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Clearing away the junk: court-appointed experts, scientifically marginal evidence, and the silicone gel breast implant litigation. Goss PJ; Worthington DL; Stallard MJ; Price JM Food Drug Law J; 2001; 56(2):227-40. PubMed ID: 12022195 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Proving causation: the use and abuse of medical and scientific evidence inside the courtroom--an epidemiologist's critique of the judicial interpretation of the Daubert ruling. Egilman D; Kim J; Biklen M Food Drug Law J; 2003; 58(2):223-50. PubMed ID: 12866555 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. A critical examination of the post-Daubert scientific evidence landscape. Kesan JP Food Drug Law J; 1997; 52(2):225-51. PubMed ID: 10557562 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Heterodoxy, iconoclasm and spuriousness: the limits of novel expert evidence. Freckelton I J Law Med; 2007 Dec; 15(3):323-36. PubMed ID: 18251417 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Experience of a scientific panel formed to advise the federal judiciary on silicone breast implants. Hulka BS; Kerkvliet NL; Tugwell P N Engl J Med; 2000 Mar; 342(11):812-5. PubMed ID: 10717019 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]