Minor changes to previously approved research: a study of IRB policies.
作者信息
Resnik David B, Babson Gwen, Dinse Gregg E
机构信息
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
出版信息
IRB. 2012 Jul-Aug;34(4):9-14.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Minor changes to previously approved research: a study of IRB policies.对先前批准研究的微小变更：一项关于机构审查委员会政策的研究
IRB. 2012 Jul-Aug;34(4):9-14.
2
Financial conflicts of interest and protection of human research subjects.经济利益冲突与人类研究受试者的保护
Hum Res Rep. 2004 Jun;19(6):1-2.
3
Policies and management of conflicts of interest within medical research institutional review boards: results of a national study.医学研究机构审查委员会内部利益冲突的政策与管理：一项全国性研究的结果
Acad Med. 2009 Apr;84(4):488-94. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31819a8ae7.
4
Offering results to research subjects: U.S. Institutional Review Board policy.向研究对象提供研究结果：美国机构审查委员会政策
Account Res. 2007 Oct-Dec;14(4):255-67. doi: 10.1080/08989620701670179.
5
Are central institutional review boards the solution? The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group's report on optimizing the IRB process.中心机构审查委员会是解决方案吗？国家心肺血液研究所工作组关于优化 IRB 流程的报告。
Acad Med. 2012 Dec;87(12):1710-4. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182720859.
6
Clinician educators' experiences with institutional review boards: results of a national survey.临床医生教育工作者在机构审查委员会的经历：一项全国性调查结果
Acad Med. 2008 Jun;83(6):590-5. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318172347a.
7
Dilemmas in paying for clinical research: the view from the IRB.临床研究付费中的困境：来自机构审查委员会的观点
IRB. 1987 Mar-Apr;9(2):1-5.
8
Centralized IRB models for emergency care research.用于急诊护理研究的集中式机构审查委员会模式。
IRB. 2014 Mar-Apr;36(2):1-9.
9
The IRB process needs to be reexamined.机构审查委员会的流程需要重新审视。
Anesth Analg. 2011 May;112(5):1249-50. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e31821224d5.
10
引用本文的文献
1
Selecting a thesis topic: A postgraduate's dilemma.选择论文题目：研究生的困境。
Ind Psychiatry J. 2023 Jan-Jun;32(1):19-23. doi: 10.4103/ipj.ipj_62_22. Epub 2022 Sep 14.
2
Unequal treatment of human research subjects.对人类研究对象的不平等对待。
Med Health Care Philos. 2015 Feb;18(1):23-32. doi: 10.1007/s11019-014-9569-6.
本文引用的文献
1
Scientists' perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors.科学家对组织公正的认知与自我报告的不当行为。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2006 Mar;1(1):51-66. doi: 10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.51.
2
How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research?机构审查委员会如何应用联邦关于儿科研究的风险和收益标准？
JAMA. 2004 Jan 28;291(4):476-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.4.476.
Zotero 插件