A citation-based method for searching scientific literature

Margit Sutrop. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2011
Times Cited: 2







List of co-cited articles
articles co-cited >1



Times Cited
  Times     Co-cited
Similarity


A needs assessment to build international research ethics capacity.
John E Sidle, Edwin Were, Kara Wools-Kaloustian, Christine Chuani, Karen Salmon, William M Tierney, Eric M Meslin. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2006
18
50



Investigators' successful strategies for working with Institutional Review Boards.
Juliana C Cartwright, Susan E Hickman, Christine A Nelson, Kathleen A Knafl. Res Nurs Health 2013
5
50

De minimis risk: a proposal for a new category of research risk.
Rosamond Rhodes, Jody Azzouni, Stefan Bernard Baumrin, Keith Benkov, Martin J Blaser, Barbara Brenner, Joseph W Dauben, William J Earle, Lily Frank, Nada Gligorov,[...]. Am J Bioeth 2011
21
50

Is mandatory research ethics reviewing ethical?
Murray Dyck, Gary Allen. J Med Ethics 2013
14
50



From patients to partners: participant-centric initiatives in biomedical research.
Jane Kaye, Liam Curren, Nick Anderson, Kelly Edwards, Stephanie M Fullerton, Nadja Kanellopoulou, David Lund, Daniel G MacArthur, Deborah Mascalzoni, James Shepherd,[...]. Nat Rev Genet 2012
161
50

Solidarity and justice as guiding principles in genomic research.
Rogeer Hoedemaekers, Bert Gordijn, Martien Pijnenburg. Bioethics 2007
21
50

Ethics committee reviews and mutual acceptance: a pilot study.
M A Rosenthal, M Sarson-Lawrence, C Alt, K Arkell, M Dodds. Intern Med J 2005
5
50





Local institutional review board (IRB) review of a multicenter trial: local costs without local context.
Bernard Ravina, Lisa Deuel, Andrew Siderowf, E Ray Dorsey. Ann Neurol 2010
36
50


Human genetic research: emerging trends in ethics.
Bartha Maria Knoppers, Ruth Chadwick. Nat Rev Genet 2005
135
50


The paradoxical problem with multiple-IRB review.
Jerry Menikoff. N Engl J Med 2010
78
50

The eMERGE Network: a consortium of biorepositories linked to electronic medical records data for conducting genomic studies.
Catherine A McCarty, Rex L Chisholm, Christopher G Chute, Iftikhar J Kullo, Gail P Jarvik, Eric B Larson, Rongling Li, Daniel R Masys, Marylyn D Ritchie, Dan M Roden,[...]. BMC Med Genomics 2011
449
50

Research priorities. ELSI 2.0 for genomics and society.
Jane Kaye, Eric M Meslin, Bartha M Knoppers, Eric T Juengst, Mylène Deschênes, Anne Cambon-Thomsen, Donald Chalmers, Jantina De Vries, Kelly Edwards, Nils Hoppe,[...]. Science 2012
25
50

The effects of local review on informed consent documents from a multicenter clinical trials consortium.
William Burman, Peter Breese, Stephen Weis, Naomi Bock, John Bernardo, Andrew Vernon. Control Clin Trials 2003
60
50

Ethical review from the inside: repertoires of evaluation in Research Ethics Committee meetings.
Jean Philippe de Jong, Myra C B van Zwieten, Dick L Willems. Sociol Health Illn 2012
10
50

Oversight of human participants research: identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals.
Ezekiel J Emanuel, Anne Wood, Alan Fleischman, Angela Bowen, Kenneth A Getz, Christine Grady, Carol Levine, Dale E Hammerschmidt, Ruth Faden, Lisa Eckenwiler,[...]. Ann Intern Med 2004
115
50

Research ethics review: do it once and do it well.
Paul Hébert, Raphael Saginur. CMAJ 2009
12
50

Sampling populations of humans across the world: ELSI issues.
Bartha Maria Knoppers, Ma'n H Zawati, Emily S Kirby. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2012
36
50

Towards a data sharing Code of Conduct for international genomic research.
Bartha Maria Knoppers, Jennifer R Harris, Anne Marie Tassé, Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne, Jane Kaye, Mylène Deschênes, Ma'n H Zawati. Genome Med 2011
65
50

Patients would benefit from simplified ethical review and consent procedure.
Mats G Hansson, Gert Jan van Ommen, Ruth Chadwick, Joakim Dillner. Lancet Oncol 2013
13
50

Economies of scale in institutional review boards.
Todd H Wagner, Anne Marie E Cruz, Gary L Chadwick. Med Care 2004
20
50


The emergence of biobanks in the legal landscape: towards a new model of governance.
Emmanuelle Rial-Sebbag, Anne Cambon-Thomsen. J Law Soc 2012
7
50



Pruning the regulatory tree.
Scott Kim, Peter Ubel, Raymond De Vries. Nature 2009
32
50

Human research ethics committees: examining their roles and practices.
Marilys Guillemin, Lynn Gillam, Doreen Rosenthal, Annie Bolitho. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2012
35
50

A solidarity-based approach to the governance of research biobanks.
Barbara Prainsack, Alena Buyx. Med Law Rev 2013
40
50



From diversity to delivery: the case of the Indian Genome Variation initiative.
Billie-Jo Hardy, Béatrice Séguin, Peter A Singer, Mitali Mukerji, Samir K Brahmachari, Abdallah S Daar. Nat Rev Genet 2008
12
50

Public and biobank participant attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing.
A A Lemke, W A Wolf, J Hebert-Beirne, M E Smith. Public Health Genomics 2010
171
50

Harmonizing global science.
Alan I Leshner, Vaughan Turekian. Science 2009
8
50

A central institutional review board for multi-institutional trials.
Michaele C Christian, Jacquelyn L Goldberg, Jack Killen, Jeffrey S Abrams, Mary S McCabe, Joan K Mauer, Robert E Wittes. N Engl J Med 2002
97
50

Impact of institutional review board practice variation on observational health services research.
Lee A Green, Julie C Lowery, Christine P Kowalski, Leon Wyszewianski. Health Serv Res 2006
96
50

The cost of institutional review board procedures in multicenter observational research.
Keith Humphreys, Jodie Trafton, Todd H Wagner. Ann Intern Med 2003
28
50

Survey of u.s. Human research protection organizations: workload and membership.
Joseph A Catania, Bernard Lo, Leslie E Wolf, M Margaret Dolcini, Lance M Pollack, Judith C Barker, Stacey Wertlieb, Jeff Henne. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2008
17
50



Consistency in decision making by research ethics committees: a controlled comparison.
E Angell, A J Sutton, K Windridge, M Dixon-Woods. J Med Ethics 2006
26
50



Co-cited is the co-citation frequency, indicating how many articles cite the article together with the query article. Similarity is the co-citation as percentage of the times cited of the query article or the article in the search results, whichever is the lowest. These numbers are calculated for the last 100 citations when articles are cited more than 100 times.