SilvermanMEMurrayTJBryanCS eds. The Quotable Osler. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 2008:173.
2.
SmithCM. Origin and uses of primum non nocere—above all, do no harm!J Clin Pharmacol. 2005;45:371-377.
3.
BibawyHCossuACoganSRosenfeldRM. Reporting of harms and adverse events in otolaryngology journals. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;140:241-244.
4.
IoannidisJLauJ. Completeness of safety reporting in randomized trials: an evaluation of seven medical areas. JAMA. 2011;285:437-443.
5.
MartinRBrennaMJaquesD. Quality of complication reporting in the surgical literature. Ann Surg. 2002;236:803-813.
6.
RidAEmanuelEJWendlerD. Evaluating the risks of clinical research. JAMA. 2010;304:1472-1479.
7.
LokeYK. Systematic reviews of adverse effects: framework for a structured approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:32-41.
8.
HobermanAParadiseJLRocketteHE. Treatment of acute otitis media in children under 2 years of age. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:105-115.
9.
StankiewiczJALalDConnorMWelchK. Complications in endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis: a 25-year experience. Laryngoscope. 2011;121:2684-2701.
10.
SunsteinCS. Risk and Reason: Safety, Law, and the Environment. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002:33-35.
11.
WoolfSHHarrisR. The harms of screening: new attention to an old concern. JAMA. 2012;307:565-566.
12.
MandelblattJSCroninKABaileyS. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:738-747.
13.
LewisLCaplanPE. The shoe-fitting fluoroscope as a radiation hazard. California Med. 1950;72:26-30.
