101 – 110 of 154
- show: 10
- |
- sort: year (new to old)
Close
Embed this list
<iframe src=" "
width=" "
height=" "
allowtransparency="true"
frameborder="0">
</iframe>
- 2017
-
Mark
Conflicts of interest issues. Response to Lucas et al.
(
- Contribution to journal › Debate/Note/Editorial
-
Mark
A misunderstanding. Response to Dr Bilo et al.
(
- Contribution to journal › Debate/Note/Editorial
-
Mark
The shaken baby syndrome report was not the result of a conspiracy. Response to Dr. Narang et al.
(
- Contribution to journal › Debate/Note/Editorial
-
Mark
The scientific evidence regarding retinal haemorrhages. Response to Hellgren et al. and Levin
(
- Contribution to journal › Debate/Note/Editorial
-
Mark
Authors' overarching reply to all the responses received to the systematic literature review on shaken baby syndrome
(
- Contribution to journal › Debate/Note/Editorial
-
Mark
Insufficient evidence for 'shaken baby syndrome' - a systematic review
(
- Contribution to journal › Scientific review
-
Mark
Special diets are common among preschool children aged one to five years in south-east Sweden according to a population-based cross-sectional survey
(
- Contribution to journal › Article
-
Mark
Boys have better short-term and long-term survival rates after intensive care admissions than girls
(
- Contribution to journal › Article
-
Mark
The care of a child with a newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia
(
- Contribution to journal › Debate/Note/Editorial
-
Mark
Health consequences of premature birth revisited – what have we learned?
(
- Contribution to journal › Debate/Note/Editorial