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 *

110 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15200360)

  • 1. The Australian government's review of positron emission tomography: evidence-based policy-making in action.
    Ware RE; Francis HW; Read KE
    Med J Aust; 2004 Jun; 180(12):627-32. PubMed ID: 15200360
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The Australian government's review of positron emission tomography: evidence-based policy decision-making in action.
    Lenzo NP
    Med J Aust; 2004 Nov; 181(9):516-7; author reply 517-8. PubMed ID: 15516203
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Evidence and Australian health policy.
    Van Der Weyden MB; Armstrong RM
    Med J Aust; 2004 Jun; 180(12):607-8. PubMed ID: 15200355
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The Australian Government's Review of Positron Emission Tomography: an open door.
    Davies P
    Med J Aust; 2004 Jun; 180(12):633. PubMed ID: 15200361
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. QUALITY OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT REPORTS PREPARED FOR THE MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
    Hua M; Boonstra T; Kelly PJ; Wilson A; Craig JC; Webster AC
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2016 Jan; 32(4):315-323. PubMed ID: 27691988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Review of a decision by the Medical Services Advisory Committee based on health technology assessment of an emerging technology: the case for remotely assisted radical prostatectomy.
    O'Malley SP; Jordan E
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2007; 23(2):286-91. PubMed ID: 17493316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. An evaluation of methods used in health technology assessments produced for the Medical Services Advisory Committee.
    Petherick ES; Villanueva EV; Dumville J; Bryan EJ; Dharmage S
    Med J Aust; 2007 Sep; 187(5):289-92. PubMed ID: 17767435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The impact of orthopaedic research evidence on health financing in Australia.
    Hua M; Myers D; Host L
    Health Res Policy Syst; 2018 May; 16(1):36. PubMed ID: 29716606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: qualitative study and methodological review.
    Chilcott J; Tappenden P; Rawdin A; Johnson M; Kaltenthaler E; Paisley S; Papaioannou D; Shippam A
    Health Technol Assess; 2010 May; 14(25):iii-iv, ix-xii, 1-107. PubMed ID: 20501062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Introduction and uptake of new medical technologies in the Australian health care system: a qualitative study.
    Gallego G; Casey R; Norman R; Goodall S
    Health Policy; 2011 Oct; 102(2-3):152-8. PubMed ID: 21601934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Horizon scanning of new and emerging medical technology in Australia: its relevance to Medical Services Advisory Committee health technology assessments and public funding.
    O'Malley SP; Jordan E
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2009 Jul; 25(3):374-82. PubMed ID: 19619357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Linking evidence from health technology assessments to policy and decision making: the Alberta model.
    Borowski HZ; Brehaut J; Hailey D
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2007; 23(2):155-61. PubMed ID: 17493300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Opportunistic evidence: evidence-based policy in the setting of the Australian Government's chlamydia screening pilot.
    Crouch SR
    Aust Health Rev; 2012 Feb; 36(1):57-60. PubMed ID: 22513021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Getting evidence into policy: The need for deliberative strategies?
    Flitcroft K; Gillespie J; Salkeld G; Carter S; Trevena L
    Soc Sci Med; 2011 Apr; 72(7):1039-46. PubMed ID: 21419539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. How do drug policy makers access research evidence?
    Ritter A
    Int J Drug Policy; 2009 Jan; 20(1):70-5. PubMed ID: 18226519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A successful practical application of Coverage with Evidence Development in Australia: Medical Services Advisory Committee interim funding and the PillCam Capsule Endoscopy Register.
    O'Malley SP; Selby WS; Jordan E
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2009 Jul; 25(3):290-6. PubMed ID: 19619347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Doing more harm than good? Do systematic reviews of PET by health technology assessment agencies provide an appraisal of the evidence that is closer to the truth than the primary data supporting its use?
    Ware RE; Hicks RJ
    J Nucl Med; 2011 Dec; 52 Suppl 2():64S-73S. PubMed ID: 22144557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.