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.
187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12214498)
1. Cost and effectiveness: approval and payment for Pulverizer. Riegelman R Md Med; 2002; 3(3):50-4. PubMed ID: 12214498 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Special report: cost-effectiveness of left-ventricular assist devices as destination therapy for end-stage heart failure. Technol Eval Cent Assess Program Exec Summ; 2004 Apr; 19(2):1. PubMed ID: 15314825 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Evidence, appropriateness, and technology assessment in cardiology: a case study of computed tomography. Redberg RF Health Aff (Millwood); 2007; 26(1):86-95. PubMed ID: 17211017 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Satisfying the requirements of the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services. Smith JJ; Henderson JA J Am Coll Radiol; 2008 Mar; 5(3):189-92. PubMed ID: 18312966 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The blind hog and the acorn: Medicare coverage for investigational devices. Betz R J Healthc Resour Manag; 1995 Mar; 13(3):31-2. PubMed ID: 10154864 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. The limited state of technology assessment for medical devices: facing the issues. Ramsey SD; Luce BR; Deyo R; Franklin G Am J Manag Care; 1998 Sep; 4 Spec No():SP188-99. PubMed ID: 10185994 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Can surgical innovation survive? Panel presentations. McKneally MF; Gleeson S; Balch CM; Mussallem MA; Abel DB; Bernhard VM Bull Am Coll Surg; 1996 Apr; 81(4):8-21, 43. PubMed ID: 10156765 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Who should be responsible? Brown E Physician Exec; 1996 Jun; 22(6):38-9. PubMed ID: 10158532 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Uterine fibroid embolization fares well against hysterectomy, study says. Levenson D Rep Med Guidel Outcomes Res; 2002 Apr; 13(8):1-2, 5. PubMed ID: 12467267 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Spine care: evaluation of the efficacy and cost of emerging technology. Smith HE; Rihn JA; Brodke DS; Guyer R; Coric D; Lonner B; Shelokov AP; Currier BL; Riley L; Phillips FM; Albert TJ Am J Med Qual; 2009; 24(6 Suppl):25S-31S. PubMed ID: 19890182 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Technology assessment, coverage decisions, and conflict: the role of guidelines. Sheingold SH Am J Manag Care; 1998 Sep; 4 Spec No():SP117-25. PubMed ID: 10185988 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A method for assessing the cost-effectiveness and the break-even point of clinical practice guidelines. Gandjour A; Lauterbach KW Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2001; 17(4):503-16. PubMed ID: 11758295 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Graftskin for the treatment of skin ulcers. Tecnologica MAP Suppl; 2001 Jul; ():10-3. PubMed ID: 11718148 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Miracles in the making. Wagner L Provider; 2003 Mar; 29(3):22-6, 28, 31-6. PubMed ID: 12666330 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Technology assessment and cost-effectiveness analysis: misguided guidelines? Naylor CD; Williams JI; Basinski A; Goel V CMAJ; 1993 Mar; 148(6):921-4. PubMed ID: 8448706 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Marketplace. Assessing medical innovations: how health plans pick what technology to cover. Moskowitz DB Faulkner Grays Med Health; 1997 May; 51(21):suppl 2 p.. PubMed ID: 10167124 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Magnetic stimulation in the treatment of urinary incontinence in adults. Tecnologica MAP Suppl; 2000 Jun; ():10-1. PubMed ID: 11067682 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]