No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
More trouble with ethics committees
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 January 2018
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
![Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'](https://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS0007125000263149/resource/name/firstPage-S0007125000263149a.jpg)
- Type
- Columns
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1999 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
References
Garfield, P. (1995) Cross district comparison of applications to research ethics committees. British Medical Journal, 311, 660–661.Google Scholar
Gilbert, C., Fulford, K. W. M. & Parker, C. (1989) Diversity in the practice of district ethics committees. British Medical Journal, 299, 1437–1439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Middle, C., Johnson, A., Petty, T., et al (1995) Ethics approval for a national postal survey: recent experience. British Medical Journal, 311, 659–660.Google Scholar
eLetters
No eLetters have been published for this article.