|
Volumn 93, Issue 17, 2001, Pages 1293-1296
|
Why most randomized phase II cervical cancer chemoprevention trials are uninformative: Lessons for the future
|
Author keywords
[No Author keywords available]
|
Indexed keywords
3 INDOLEMETHANOL;
ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;
ASCORBIC ACID;
BETA CAROTENE;
BIOCHEMICAL MARKER;
EFLORNITHINE;
FOLIC ACID;
PHOSPHATIDYLCHOLINE;
PLACEBO;
RETINOIC ACID;
RETINOID DERIVATIVE;
TRACE ELEMENT;
CANCER GRADING;
CANCER REGRESSION;
CANCER SCREENING;
CHEMOPROPHYLAXIS;
CLINICAL STUDY;
CLINICAL TRIAL;
COLPOSCOPY;
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL;
CONTROLLED STUDY;
CRYOTHERAPY;
DRUG RESPONSE;
FEMALE;
HISTOPATHOLOGY;
HUMAN;
LASER SURGERY;
METHODOLOGY;
NOTE;
PAPANICOLAOU TEST;
PATIENT CODING;
PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL;
PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL;
PRIORITY JOURNAL;
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;
RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC;
SAMPLE;
SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;
UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY;
UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;
UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU;
|
EID: 0035812290
PISSN: 00278874
EISSN: None
Source Type: Journal
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/93.17.1293 Document Type: Note |
Times cited : (11)
|
References (27)
|