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 *

142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11728542)

  • 1. Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: a qualitative case study.
    Martin DK; Pater JL; Singer PA
    Lancet; 2001 Nov; 358(9294):1676-81. PubMed ID: 11728542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs.
    Millar A
    Lancet; 2002 Apr; 359(9316):1524; author reply 1524-5. PubMed ID: 11988280
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs.
    Wheatley K; Djulbegovic B; Glasmacher A
    Lancet; 2002 Apr; 359(9316):1525. PubMed ID: 11988282
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [High-cost medicine--do we lack open and legitimate procedures for prioritising?].
    Johansson KA; Miljeteig I; Norheim OF
    Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2009 Jan; 129(1):17-20. PubMed ID: 19119291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The effect of priority setting decisions for new cancer drugs on medical oncologists' practice in Ontario: a qualitative study.
    Berry SR; Hubay S; Soibelman H; Martin DK
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2007 Nov; 7():193. PubMed ID: 18042302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Priority setting at the micro-, meso- and macro-levels in Canada, Norway and Uganda.
    Kapiriri L; Norheim OF; Martin DK
    Health Policy; 2007 Jun; 82(1):78-94. PubMed ID: 17034898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Priority setting and cardiac surgery: a qualitative case study.
    Walton NA; Martin DK; Peter EH; Pringle DM; Singer PA
    Health Policy; 2007 Mar; 80(3):444-58. PubMed ID: 16757057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study.
    Singer PA; Martin DK; Giacomini M; Purdy L
    BMJ; 2000 Nov; 321(7272):1316-8. PubMed ID: 11090513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Accounting for reasonableness: Exploring the personal internal framework affecting decisions about cancer drug funding.
    Sinclair S; Hagen NA; Chambers C; Manns B; Simon A; Browman GP
    Health Policy; 2008 May; 86(2-3):381-90. PubMed ID: 18243395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Priority setting in a hospital critical care unit: qualitative case study.
    Mielke J; Martin DK; Singer PA
    Crit Care Med; 2003 Dec; 31(12):2764-8. PubMed ID: 14668612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Public perspectives on disinvestments in drug funding: results from a Canadian deliberative public engagement event on cancer drugs.
    Costa S; Bentley C; Regier DA; McTaggart-Cowan H; Mitton C; Burgess MM; Peacock SJ
    BMC Public Health; 2019 Jul; 19(1):977. PubMed ID: 31331312
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Rationing cancer treatment: a qualitative study of perceptions of legitimate limit-setting.
    Feiring E; Wang H
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2018 May; 18(1):342. PubMed ID: 29743065
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. SARS and hospital priority setting: a qualitative case study and evaluation.
    Bell JA; Hyland S; DePellegrin T; Upshur RE; Bernstein M; Martin DK
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2004 Dec; 4(1):36. PubMed ID: 15606924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Trade-offs, fairness, and funding for cancer drugs: key findings from a deliberative public engagement event in British Columbia, Canada.
    Bentley C; Costa S; Burgess MM; Regier D; McTaggart-Cowan H; Peacock SJ
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2018 May; 18(1):339. PubMed ID: 29739463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Risk management frameworks for human health and environmental risks.
    Jardine C; Hrudey S; Shortreed J; Craig L; Krewski D; Furgal C; McColl S
    J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev; 2003; 6(6):569-720. PubMed ID: 14698953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The public funding of expensive cancer therapies: synthesizing the "3Es"--evidence, economics, and ethics.
    Kirby J; Somers E; Simpson C; McPhee J
    Organ Ethic; 2008; 4(2):97-108. PubMed ID: 18839752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Addressing the affordability of cancer drugs: using deliberative public engagement to inform health policy.
    Bentley C; Peacock S; Abelson J; Burgess MM; Demers-Payette O; Longstaff H; Tripp L; Lavis JN; Wilson MG
    Health Res Policy Syst; 2019 Feb; 17(1):17. PubMed ID: 30732616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Use of economic evaluation in local health care decision-making in England: a qualitative investigation.
    Eddama O; Coast J
    Health Policy; 2009 Mar; 89(3):261-70. PubMed ID: 18657336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Priority setting for orphan drugs: an international comparison.
    Rosenberg-Yunger ZR; Daar AS; Thorsteinsdóttir H; Martin DK
    Health Policy; 2011 Apr; 100(1):25-34. PubMed ID: 20961647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Hospital priority setting with an appeals process: a qualitative case study and evaluation.
    Madden S; Martin DK; Downey S; Singer PA
    Health Policy; 2005 Jul; 73(1):10-20. PubMed ID: 15911053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.