These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10155616)

  • 1. A comparative review of pharmacoeconomic guidelines.
    Jacobs P; Bachynsky J; Baladi JF
    Pharmacoeconomics; 1995 Sep; 8(3):182-9. PubMed ID: 10155616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The revised Canadian Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals.
    Glennie JL; Torrance GW; Baladi JF; Berka C; Hubbard E; Menon D; Otten N; Rivière M
    Pharmacoeconomics; 1999 May; 15(5):459-68. PubMed ID: 10537963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The role of pharmacoeconomic guidelines for formulary approval: the Australian experience.
    Langley PC
    Clin Ther; 1993; 15(6):1154-76; discussion 1120. PubMed ID: 8111812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Economic analysis as an aid to subsidisation decisions: the development of Australian guidelines for pharmaceuticals.
    Henry D
    Pharmacoeconomics; 1992 Jan; 1(1):54-67. PubMed ID: 10147039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Emerging standardization in pharmacoeconomics.
    Mullins CD; Ogilvie S
    Clin Ther; 1998; 20(6):1194-202; discussion 1192-3. PubMed ID: 9916612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Using pharmacoeconomic analysis to make drug insurance coverage decisions.
    Anis AH; Rahman T; Schechter MT
    Pharmacoeconomics; 1998 Jan; 13(1 Pt 2):119-26. PubMed ID: 10176146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The transferability of valuing lost productivity across jurisdictions. differences between national pharmacoeconomic guidelines.
    Knies S; Severens JL; Ament AJ; Evers SM
    Value Health; 2010 Aug; 13(5):519-27. PubMed ID: 20712601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. What do international pharmacoeconomic guidelines say about economic data transferability?
    Barbieri M; Drummond M; Rutten F; Cook J; Glick HA; Lis J; Reed SD; Sculpher M; Severens JL;
    Value Health; 2010 Dec; 13(8):1028-37. PubMed ID: 20667054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Educational standards of the Polish Pharmacoeconomic Society].
    Czech M; Hermanowski T; Kocić I; Lis J; Nowakowska E;
    Pol Merkur Lekarski; 2009 Nov; 27(161):400-3. PubMed ID: 19999805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: a review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
    Hill SR; Mitchell AS; Henry DA
    JAMA; 2000 Apr; 283(16):2116-21. PubMed ID: 10791503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products: a draft document for Ontario and Canada.
    Detsky AS
    Pharmacoeconomics; 1993 May; 3(5):354-61. PubMed ID: 10146886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. How should we deal with patient heterogeneity in economic evaluation: a systematic review of national pharmacoeconomic guidelines.
    Ramaekers BL; Joore MA; Grutters JP
    Value Health; 2013; 16(5):855-62. PubMed ID: 23947981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Can pharmacoeconomic guidelines be implemented successfully in Asia?
    Li SC
    J Med Econ; 2008; 11(2):341-3. PubMed ID: 19450090
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Industry comment on the 1995 revised Australian pharmacoeconomic guidelines.
    Grobler MP; Macarounas-Kirchmann K; Pearce GA; Stafford M
    Pharmacoeconomics; 1996 Apr; 9(4):353-6. PubMed ID: 10160109
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The November 1995 revised Australian guidelines for the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals.
    Langley PC
    Pharmacoeconomics; 1996 Apr; 9(4):341-52. PubMed ID: 10160108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Report from the Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada.
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 1995; 11(4):796-7. PubMed ID: 8567213
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Initial development of the Australian Guidelines.
    Freund DA
    Med Care; 1996 Dec; 34(12 Suppl):DS211-5. PubMed ID: 8969328
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A case for the adoption of pharmacoeconomic guidelines in Japan.
    Ikeda S; Ikegami N; Oliver AJ; Ikeda M
    Pharmacoeconomics; 1996 Dec; 10(6):546-51. PubMed ID: 10164057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Standardization of the economic evaluation of health technologies. European developments.
    Rovira J
    Med Care; 1996 Dec; 34(12 Suppl):DS182-8. PubMed ID: 8969325
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The Danish approach to standards for economic evaluation methodologies.
    Alban A; Gyldmark M; Pedersen AV; Søgaard J
    Pharmacoeconomics; 1997 Dec; 12(6):627-36. PubMed ID: 10175975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.