98 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16579823)
1. Evaluating disease management programme effectiveness: an introduction to instrumental variables.
Linden A; Adams JL
J Eval Clin Pract; 2006 Apr; 12(2):148-54. PubMed ID: 16579823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Improving participant selection in disease management programmes: insights gained from propensity score stratification.
Linden A; Adams JL
J Eval Clin Pract; 2008 Oct; 14(5):914-8. PubMed ID: 19018926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Evaluating disease management programme effectiveness: an introduction to the regression discontinuity design.
Linden A; Adams JL; Roberts N
J Eval Clin Pract; 2006 Apr; 12(2):124-31. PubMed ID: 16579820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Do diabetes group visits lead to lower medical care charges?
Clancy DE; Dismuke CE; Magruder KM; Simpson KN; Bradford D
Am J Manag Care; 2008 Jan; 14(1):39-44. PubMed ID: 18197744
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Impact of disease management on health care utilization: evidence from the "Florida: A Healthy State (FAHS)" Medicaid Program.
Afifi AA; Morisky DE; Kominski GF; Kotlerman JB
Prev Med; 2007 Jun; 44(6):547-53. PubMed ID: 17350086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Interpreting treatment-effect estimates with heterogeneity and choice: simulation model results.
Brooks JM; Fang G
Clin Ther; 2009 Apr; 31(4):902-19. PubMed ID: 19446162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Measuring diagnostic and predictive accuracy in disease management: an introduction to receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.
Linden A
J Eval Clin Pract; 2006 Apr; 12(2):132-9. PubMed ID: 16579821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A model to evaluate quality and effectiveness of disease management.
Lemmens KM; Nieboer AP; van Schayck CP; Asin JD; Huijsman R
Qual Saf Health Care; 2008 Dec; 17(6):447-53. PubMed ID: 19064661
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Strengthening the case for disease management effectiveness: un-hiding the hidden bias.
Linden A; Adams JL; Roberts N
J Eval Clin Pract; 2006 Apr; 12(2):140-7. PubMed ID: 16579822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Some cautions on the use of instrumental variables estimators in outcomes research: how bias in instrumental variables estimators is affected by instrument strength, instrument contamination, and sample size.
Crown WH; Henk HJ; Vanness DJ
Value Health; 2011 Dec; 14(8):1078-84. PubMed ID: 22152177
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Evaluating hospital costs in type 2 diabetes care: does the choice of the model matter?
Gregori D; Pagano E; Rosato R; Bo S; Zigon G; Merletti F
Curr Med Res Opin; 2006 Oct; 22(10):1965-71. PubMed ID: 17022856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Direct costs of warfarin treatment among patients with atrial fibrillation in a Finnish health care setting.
Hallinen T; Martikainen JA; Soini EJ; Suominen L; Aronkytö T
Curr Med Res Opin; 2006 Apr; 22(4):683-92. PubMed ID: 16684429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Adjusting for bias and unmeasured confounding in Mendelian randomization studies with binary responses.
Palmer TM; Thompson JR; Tobin MD; Sheehan NA; Burton PR
Int J Epidemiol; 2008 Oct; 37(5):1161-8. PubMed ID: 18463132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Use of instrumental variables in the presence of heterogeneity and self-selection: an application to treatments of breast cancer patients.
Basu A; Heckman JJ; Navarro-Lozano S; Urzua S
Health Econ; 2007 Nov; 16(11):1133-57. PubMed ID: 17910109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Heterogeneity and the interpretation of treatment effect estimates from risk adjustment and instrumental variable methods.
Brooks JM; Chrischilles EA
Med Care; 2007 Oct; 45(10 Supl 2):S123-30. PubMed ID: 17909370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A randomized, controlled study to evaluate the role of an in-home asthma disease management program provided by respiratory therapists in improving outcomes and reducing the cost of care.
Shelledy DC; Legrand TS; Gardner DD; Peters JI
J Asthma; 2009 Mar; 46(2):194-201. PubMed ID: 19253130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Treatment effect estimates varied depending on the definition of the provider prescribing preference-based instrumental variables.
Ionescu-Ittu R; Abrahamowicz M; Pilote L
J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Feb; 65(2):155-62. PubMed ID: 21995973
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparisons of rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone monotherapy introduction and associated health care utilization in Medicaid-enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Balkrishnan R; Arondekar BV; Camacho FT; Shenolikar RA; Horblyuk R; Anderson RT
Clin Ther; 2007 Jun; 29(6 Pt 1):1306-15. PubMed ID: 18036392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Using costs in cost-effectiveness models for chronic diseases: lessons from diabetes.
Hoerger TJ
Med Care; 2009 Jul; 47(7 Suppl 1):S21-7. PubMed ID: 19536014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Diabetes disease management results in Hispanic Medicaid patients.
Berg GD; Wadhwa S
J Health Care Poor Underserved; 2009 May; 20(2):432-43. PubMed ID: 19395840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
