Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Filters

IRB

Showing results (711-720 of 778) with videos related to

Pageof 78
Sort By:
IRB|July 2, 2010
Canadian research ethics boards and multisite research: experiences from two minimal-risk studiesEric Racine, Emily Bell, Constance Deslauriers
IRB|August 25, 2009
Canadian research ethics boards, MRI research risks, and MRI risk classificationJennifer Marshall, Michael R Hadskis
IRB|October 23, 2003
The subject advocate: protecting the interests of participants with fluctuating decisionmaking capacityScott Stroup, Paul Appelbaum
IRB|February 12, 2004
Beyond compliance...is it too much to ask?Greg Koski
IRB|February 12, 2004
Concepts, categories, and value judgments in informed consent formsMark Hochhauser
IRB|February 12, 2004
Research involving the homeless: arguments against payment-in-kind (PinK)Toby L Schonfeld, Joseph S Brown, Meaghann Weniger, et al.
IRB|July 10, 2003
Nontherapeutic research and minimal riskGary Briefel, Judith Stiff, Robert Nelson
IRB|July 2, 2003
Research oversight through new lenses: the consortium to examine clinical research ethicsJeremy Sugarman, Lisa A Eckenwiler, Ezkiel J Emanuel
IRB|May 10, 2003
Informed consent for Alzheimer's disease clinical trials: a survey of clinical investigatorsJason H T Karlawish, David Knopman, Christopher M Clark, et al.
IRB|May 10, 2003
The right of subjects to see the protocolRobert M Veatch
Pageof 78

Showing results (711-720 of 778) with videos related to

Sort By:
Pageof 78
IRB|July 2, 2010
Canadian research ethics boards and multisite research: experiences from two minimal-risk studiesEric Racine, Emily Bell, Constance Deslauriers
IRB|August 25, 2009
Canadian research ethics boards, MRI research risks, and MRI risk classificationJennifer Marshall, Michael R Hadskis
IRB|October 23, 2003
The subject advocate: protecting the interests of participants with fluctuating decisionmaking capacityScott Stroup, Paul Appelbaum
IRB|February 12, 2004
Beyond compliance...is it too much to ask?Greg Koski
IRB|February 12, 2004
Concepts, categories, and value judgments in informed consent formsMark Hochhauser
IRB|February 12, 2004
Research involving the homeless: arguments against payment-in-kind (PinK)Toby L Schonfeld, Joseph S Brown, Meaghann Weniger, et al.
IRB|July 10, 2003
Nontherapeutic research and minimal riskGary Briefel, Judith Stiff, Robert Nelson
IRB|July 2, 2003
Research oversight through new lenses: the consortium to examine clinical research ethicsJeremy Sugarman, Lisa A Eckenwiler, Ezkiel J Emanuel
IRB|May 10, 2003
Informed consent for Alzheimer's disease clinical trials: a survey of clinical investigatorsJason H T Karlawish, David Knopman, Christopher M Clark, et al.
IRB|May 10, 2003
The right of subjects to see the protocolRobert M Veatch
Pageof 78