Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Results: 1 to 20 of 97

Similar articles for PubMed (Select 23060322)

1.

Is anything lost if we give up clinical equipoise?

Miller FG.

Clin Trials. 2012 Oct;9(5):632-3. doi: 10.1177/1740774512455262. No abstract available.

PMID:
23060322
2.

On what we will lose in giving up on clinical equipoise: A reply to Miller.

van der Graaf R, van Delden JJ.

Clin Trials. 2012 Oct;9(5):628-9. doi: 10.1177/1740774512453221. No abstract available.

PMID:
23060320
3.

The social function of clinical equipoise.

Kimmelman J.

Clin Trials. 2012 Oct;9(5):630-1. doi: 10.1177/1740774512455261. No abstract available.

PMID:
23060321
4.

Clinical equipoise and risk-benefit assessment.

Miller FG.

Clin Trials. 2012 Oct;9(5):621-7. doi: 10.1177/1740774512450952. Epub 2012 Jul 9.

PMID:
22777654
5.

Will the real Charles Fried please stand up?

Miller PB, Weijer C.

Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2003 Dec;13(4):353-7.

PMID:
15049299
6.

Case study. Is longer always better? Commentary.

Emanuel EJ, Grady C.

Hastings Cent Rep. 2008 May-Jun;38(3):10-1. No abstract available.

PMID:
18584850
7.

Case study. Is longer always better? Commentary.

Menikoff J.

Hastings Cent Rep. 2008 May-Jun;38(3):11-2. No abstract available.

PMID:
18581930
8.

Dispensing with equipoise.

Miller FG.

Am J Med Sci. 2011 Oct;342(4):276-81. doi: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e318227e871.

PMID:
21804362
9.

Case study. Is longer always better?

[No authors listed]

Hastings Cent Rep. 2008 May-Jun;38(3):10. No abstract available.

PMID:
18581929
10.

The sham surgery debate and the moral complexity of risk-benefit analysis.

Kim SY.

Am J Bioeth. 2003 Autumn;3(4):68-70. No abstract available.

PMID:
14744342
11.

Sham surgery: to cut or not to cut--that is the ethical dilemma.

Clark PA.

Am J Bioeth. 2003 Autumn;3(4):66-8. No abstract available.

PMID:
14744341
12.

Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research revisited.

Miller FG.

Am J Bioeth. 2006 Jul-Aug;6(4):59-61; discussion W42-5. No abstract available.

PMID:
16885110
13.

Twenty-five years of therapeutic misconception.

Miller FG.

Hastings Cent Rep. 2008 Mar-Apr;38(2):6; author reply 6-7. No abstract available.

PMID:
18457218
14.

Have scientists met their ethical responsibility towards research participants?

Srinivasan S.

Indian J Med Ethics. 2013 Oct-Dec;10(4):253-4. No abstract available.

PMID:
24152350
15.

Screening for cervical cancer revisited: understanding implementation research.

Macklin R.

Indian J Med Ethics. 2013 Oct-Dec;10(4):251-3. No abstract available.

PMID:
24152349
16.

Equipoise, ethics, and the necessity of randomized trials in surgery.

Adibe OO, St Peter SD.

Arch Surg. 2012 Oct;147(10):899-900. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2012.1796. No abstract available.

PMID:
23070406
17.

Ethics of "standard care" in randomised trials of screening for cervical cancer should not ignore scientific evidence and ground realities.

Pramesh CS, Shastri S, Mittra I, Badwe RA.

Indian J Med Ethics. 2013 Oct-Dec;10(4):250-1. No abstract available.

PMID:
24152348
18.

Ethics of 'standard care' in randomised controlled trials of screening for cervical cancer.

Srinivasan S.

Indian J Med Ethics. 2013 Jul-Sep;10(3):147-9. No abstract available.

PMID:
23912726
19.

Equipoise should be amended, not abandoned.

van der Graaf R, van Delden JJ.

Clin Trials. 2011 Aug;8(4):408-16. doi: 10.1177/1740774511409600. Epub 2011 Jul 11.

PMID:
21746767
20.

Confusions in the equipoise concept and the alternative of fully informed overlapping rational decisions.

Chambers DW.

Med Health Care Philos. 2011 May;14(2):133-42. doi: 10.1007/s11019-010-9255-2.

PMID:
20495875
Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk