Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 24

1.

Good publication practice for pharmaceutical companies.

Wager E, Field EA, Grossman L.

Curr Med Res Opin. 2003;19(3):149-54.

PMID:
12814125
2.

Good practice for publishing the results of clinical trials.

Wager E.

J Br Menopause Soc. 2005 Sep;11(3):109-11. Review.

PMID:
16157002
3.
4.

Conflicts of interest in research involving human beings.

Greco D, Diniz NM.

J Int Bioethique. 2008 Mar-Jun;19(1-2):143-54, 202-3. Review.

PMID:
18664007
5.

[The roles and responsibilities of the pharmaceutical industry].

Dejgaard A, Thomsen MK.

Ugeskr Laeger. 2003 Apr 14;165(16):1676-9. Review. Danish.

PMID:
12756829
6.

The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences: part 2: a qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on authorship, access to trial data, and trial registration and publication.

Schott G, Pachl H, Limbach U, Gundert-Remy U, Lieb K, Ludwig WD.

Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010 Apr;107(17):295-301. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2010.0295. Epub 2010 Apr 30. Review.

7.

Ethics and scientific publication.

Benos DJ, Fabres J, Farmer J, Gutierrez JP, Hennessy K, Kosek D, Lee JH, Olteanu D, Russell T, Shaikh F, Wang K.

Adv Physiol Educ. 2005 Jun;29(2):59-74. Review.

8.

Industry sponsorship and authorship of clinical trials over 20 years.

Buchkowsky SS, Jewesson PJ.

Ann Pharmacother. 2004 Apr;38(4):579-85. Epub 2004 Feb 24. Review.

PMID:
14982982
9.

Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment.

Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, Riemsma R, Woolacoot N, Glanville J.

Health Technol Assess. 2004 Sep;8(36):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-158. Review.

10.

Publication bias in the medical literature: a review by a Canadian Research Ethics Board.

Hall R, de Antueno C, Webber A; Canadian Research Ethics Board..

Can J Anaesth. 2007 May;54(5):380-8. Review.

PMID:
17470890
11.

Lack of involvement of medical writers and the pharmaceutical industry in publications retracted for misconduct: a systematic, controlled, retrospective study.

Woolley KL, Lew RA, Stretton S, Ely JA, Bramich NJ, Keys JR, Monk JA, Woolley MJ.

Curr Med Res Opin. 2011 Jun;27(6):1175-82. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2011.573546. Epub 2011 Apr 7. Review.

PMID:
21473670
12.

Scientific authorship. Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines.

Claxton LD.

Mutat Res. 2005 Jan;589(1):31-45. Review.

PMID:
15652225
13.

[Medical research and the pharmaceutical industry. Uneasy bedfellows or a prenuptial agreement?].

Cohen AF.

Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2001 Jul 28;145(30):1438-42. Review. Dutch.

PMID:
11503309
14.

Authorship: an ethical dilemma of science.

Grieger MC.

Sao Paulo Med J. 2005 Sep 1;123(5):242-6. Epub 2005 Dec 8. Review.

15.

[Misconduct in clinical scientific investigations].

De Broe ME.

Verh K Acad Geneeskd Belg. 2004;66(5-6):335-41. Review. Dutch.

PMID:
15641564
16.
17.

Publication of clinical trials: accountability and accessibility.

Tumber MB, Dickersin K.

J Intern Med. 2004 Oct;256(4):271-83. Review.

18.

Integrity of scientific data: transparency of clinical trial data.

Moore N, Juillet Y, Bertoye PH; Round Table No 4, Giens XXII..

Therapie. 2007 May-Jun;62(3):203-9, 211-6. Epub 2007 Sep 6. Review. English, French.

19.

Lets Do Lunch? The ethics of accepting gifts from the pharmaceutical industry.

Hagen B, Pijl-Zieber EM, Souveny K, Lacroix A.

Can Nurse. 2008 Apr;104(4):30-5. Review.

PMID:
18488765
20.

Funding food science and nutrition research: financial conflicts and scientific integrity.

Rowe S, Alexander N, Clydesdale F, Applebaum R, Atkinson S, Black R, Dwyer J, Hentges E, Higley N, Lefevre M, Lupton J, Miller S, Tancredi D, Weaver C, Woteki C, Wedral E; International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) North America Working Group on Guiding Principles..

Nutr Rev. 2009 May;67(5):264-72. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2009.00188.x. Review.

PMID:
19386030

Supplemental Content

Support Center