142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14997589)
21. Which Framework to Use? A Systematic Review of Ethical Frameworks for the Screening or Evaluation of Health Technology Innovations.
Vandemeulebroucke T; Denier Y; Mertens E; Gastmans C
Sci Eng Ethics; 2022 May; 28(3):26. PubMed ID: 35639210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Do the findings of case series studies vary significantly according to methodological characteristics?
Dalziel K; Round A; Stein K; Garside R; Castelnuovo E; Payne L
Health Technol Assess; 2005 Jan; 9(2):iii-iv, 1-146. PubMed ID: 15588556
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Assessing Response in Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review of the Psychometric Performance of Measures Used in HTAs and Clinical Trials.
Penton H; Jayade S; Selveindran S; Heisen M; Piketty C; Ulianov L; Jabbar-Lopez ZK; Silverberg JI; Puelles J
Dermatol Ther (Heidelb); 2023 Nov; 13(11):2549-2571. PubMed ID: 37747670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Interventions to promote technology adoption in firms: A systematic review.
Alfaro-Serrano D; Balantrapu T; Chaurey R; Goicoechea A; Verhoogen E
Campbell Syst Rev; 2021 Dec; 17(4):e1181. PubMed ID: 36950339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Evaluations of public health interventions produced by health technology assessment agencies: A mapping review and analysis by type and evidence content.
Cyr PR; Jain V; Chalkidou K; Ottersen T; Gopinathan U
Health Policy; 2021 Aug; 125(8):1054-1064. PubMed ID: 34112508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. All nations depend on the global knowledge pool--analysis of country of origin of studies used for health technology assessments in Germany.
Herrmann KH; Wolff R; Scheibler F; Waffenschmidt S; Hemkens LG; Sauerland S; Antes G
PLoS One; 2013; 8(3):e59213. PubMed ID: 23516611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. [Ethics in health technology assessment. Review].
García-León FJ
J Healthc Qual Res; 2019; 34(1):20-28. PubMed ID: 30723066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. "Same same but different"? On the questionable but crucial differentiation between ethical and social aspects in health technology assessment.
Otto I; Kahrass H; Mertz M
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes; 2021 Aug; 164():1-10. PubMed ID: 34301527
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. A pilot study assessing the similarity between core outcome sets and outcomes included in health technology assessments.
Cox P; R Williamson P; Dodd S
F1000Res; 2021; 10():1084. PubMed ID: 35528958
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Differences between systematic reviews and health technology assessments: a trade-off between the ideals of scientific rigor and the realities of policy making.
Rotstein D; Laupacis A
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2004; 20(2):177-83. PubMed ID: 15209177
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Which Benefits Are Mentioned Most Often in Drug Development Publications?
Strüver V
Curr Ther Res Clin Exp; 2017; 86():2-8. PubMed ID: 29234480
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Health Technology Assessments for Flash Glucose Monitoring and How to Use Them in Everyday Clinical Practice.
Stueve M; Schnell O
J Diabetes Sci Technol; 2019 May; 13(3):584-591. PubMed ID: 30132687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Bridging trial and decision: a checklist to frame health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions.
Grutters JP; Seferina SC; Tjan-Heijnen VC; van Kampen RJ; Goettsch WG; Joore MA
Value Health; 2011; 14(5):777-84. PubMed ID: 21839418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Alternatives to animal experimentation in basic research.
Gruber FP; Hartung T
ALTEX; 2004; 21 Suppl 1():3-31. PubMed ID: 15586255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Ethically sound technology? Guidelines for interactive ethical assessment of personal health monitoring.
Palm E; Nordgren A; Verweij M; Collste G
Stud Health Technol Inform; 2013; 187():105-14. PubMed ID: 23920461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia.
Osborne SR; Alston LV; Bolton KA; Whelan J; Reeve E; Wong Shee A; Browne J; Walker T; Versace VL; Allender S; Nichols M; Backholer K; Goodwin N; Lewis S; Dalton H; Prael G; Curtin M; Brooks R; Verdon S; Crockett J; Hodgins G; Walsh S; Lyle DM; Thompson SC; Browne LJ; Knight S; Pit SW; Jones M; Gillam MH; Leach MJ; Gonzalez-Chica DA; Muyambi K; Eshetie T; Tran K; May E; Lieschke G; Parker V; Smith A; Hayes C; Dunlop AJ; Rajappa H; White R; Oakley P; Holliday S
Med J Aust; 2020 Dec; 213 Suppl 11():S3-S32.e1. PubMed ID: 33314144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Health technology assessment (HTA) in England, France and Germany: what do matched drug pairs tell us about recommendations by national HTA agencies?
Schaefer R; Hernandez D; Selberg L; Schlander M
J Comp Eff Res; 2021 Nov; 10(16):1187-1195. PubMed ID: 34583534
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Ethics information retrieval in HTA: state of current practice.
Horton J; DeJean D; Farrah K; Hodgson A; Kaunelis D; Walter M
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2023 Jul; 39(1):e43. PubMed ID: 37465961
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Methodological guidance documents for evaluation of ethical considerations in health technology assessment: a systematic review.
Assasi N; Schwartz L; Tarride JE; Campbell K; Goeree R
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2014 Apr; 14(2):203-20. PubMed ID: 24625039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Evaluation of medical and health economic effectiveness of non-pharmacological secondary prevention of coronary heart disease.
Müller-Riemenschneider F; Damm K; Meinhard C; Bockelbrink A; Vauth C; Willich SN; Greiner W
GMS Health Technol Assess; 2009 Dec; 5():Doc16. PubMed ID: 21289903
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
