245 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12053418)
21. Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies.
Drummond M; Manca A; Sculpher M
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2005; 21(2):165-71. PubMed ID: 15921055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Evidence-based decision-making within Australia's pharmaceutical benefits scheme.
Lopert R
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund); 2009 Jul; 60():1-13. PubMed ID: 19639714
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Regulating the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals and medical devices: a European perspective.
Cookson R; Hutton J
Health Policy; 2003 Feb; 63(2):167-78. PubMed ID: 12543529
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Real-world data for health technology assessment for reimbursement decisions in Asia: current landscape and a way forward.
Lou J; Kc S; Toh KY; Dabak S; Adler A; Ahn J; Bayani DBS; Chan K; Choiphel D; Chua B; Genuino AJ; Guerrero AM; Kearney B; Lin LW; Liu Y; Nakamura R; Pearce F; Prinja S; Pwu RF; Shafie AA; Sui B; Suwantika A; Teerawattananon Y; Tunis S; Wu HM; Zalcberg J; Zhao K; Isaranuwatchai W; Wee HL
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2020 Oct; 36(5):474-480. PubMed ID: 32928330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. The ISPOR Good Practices for Quality Improvement of Cost-Effectiveness Research Task Force Report.
McGhan WF; Al M; Doshi JA; Kamae I; Marx SE; Rindress D
Value Health; 2009; 12(8):1086-99. PubMed ID: 19744291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Health technology assessment in Australia: a role for clinical registries?
Scott AM
Aust Health Rev; 2017 Mar; 41(1):19-25. PubMed ID: 27028134
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Harmonization of evidence requirements for health technology assessment in reimbursement decision making.
Hutton J; Trueman P; Facey K
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2008; 24(4):511-7. PubMed ID: 18828948
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions.
Drummond MF; Schwartz JS; Jönsson B; Luce BR; Neumann PJ; Siebert U; Sullivan SD
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2008; 24(3):244-58; discussion 362-8. PubMed ID: 18601792
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Health Technology Assessment in Japan: A Pharmaceutical Industry Perspective.
Kido K; Matsumaru N; Tsukamoto K
Ther Innov Regul Sci; 2019 Jul; 53(4):472-480. PubMed ID: 30157674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Health technology assessment for medical devices in Europe. What must be considered.
Siebert M; Clauss LC; Carlisle M; Casteels B; de Jong P; Kreuzer M; Sanghera S; Stokoe G; Trueman P; Lang AW;
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2002; 18(3):733-40. PubMed ID: 12391964
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. IS THE EUNETHTA HTA CORE MODEL® FIT FOR PURPOSE? EVALUATION FROM AN INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE.
Gyldmark M; Lampe K; Ruof J; Pöhlmann J; Hebborn A; Kristensen FB
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2018 Jan; 34(5):458-463. PubMed ID: 30334508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Co-ordinating health technology assessment in Canada: a European perspective.
McDaid D
Health Policy; 2003 Feb; 63(2):205-13. PubMed ID: 12543533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Methods of international health technology assessment agencies for economic evaluations--a comparative analysis.
Mathes T; Jacobs E; Morfeld JC; Pieper D
BMC Health Serv Res; 2013 Sep; 13():371. PubMed ID: 24079858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Identifying and Revealing the Importance of Decision-Making Criteria for Health Technology Assessment: A Retrospective Analysis of Reimbursement Recommendations in Ireland.
Schmitz S; McCullagh L; Adams R; Barry M; Walsh C
Pharmacoeconomics; 2016 Sep; 34(9):925-37. PubMed ID: 27034245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Towards a Transparent, Credible, Evidence-Based Decision-Making Process of New Drug Listing on the Hong Kong Hospital Authority Drug Formulary: Challenges and Suggestions.
Wong CKH; Wu O; Cheung BMY
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2018 Feb; 16(1):5-14. PubMed ID: 28702874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Budget impact analysis.
Leelahavarong P
J Med Assoc Thai; 2014 May; 97 Suppl 5():S65-71. PubMed ID: 24964701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Surrogate Endpoints in Health Technology Assessment: An International Review of Methodological Guidelines.
Grigore B; Ciani O; Dams F; Federici C; de Groot S; Möllenkamp M; Rabbe S; Shatrov K; Zemplenyi A; Taylor RS
Pharmacoeconomics; 2020 Oct; 38(10):1055-1070. PubMed ID: 32572825
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT METHODS GUIDELINES FOR MEDICAL DEVICES: HOW CAN WE ADDRESS THE GAPS? THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF MEDICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE.
Polisena J; Castaldo R; Ciani O; Federici C; Borsci S; Ritrovato M; Clark D; Pecchia L
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2018 Jan; 34(3):276-289. PubMed ID: 29909792
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Using health outcomes data to inform decision-making: a pharmaceutical industry perspective.
Keech M
Pharmacoeconomics; 2001; 19 Suppl 2():27-31. PubMed ID: 11700786
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Determinants of Managed Entry Agreements in the context of Health Technology Assessment: a comparative analysis of oncology therapies in four countries.
Efthymiadou O; Kanavos P
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2021 Jan; 37():e31. PubMed ID: 33509311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
