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 *

152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16884603)

  • 21. The NICE Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP): manufacturer submission challenges.
    Sprange K; Clift M
    J R Soc Med; 2012 Apr; 105 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S4-11. PubMed ID: 22508972
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. NICE medical technology guidance: devices and diagnostics.
    Campbell B
    Heart; 2011 Nov; 97(21):1794-5. PubMed ID: 21917668
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Are health technology assessments a reliable tool in th analysis of the clinical value of PET in oncology? Who audits the auditors?
    Højgaard L
    Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging; 2003 May; 30(5):637-41. PubMed ID: 12838956
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The changing face of health technology assessment.
    Hillman BJ
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2009 May; 6(5):289. PubMed ID: 19394565
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Introduction: health technology assessment in diagnostic imaging.
    Carlos RC; Goeree R
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2009 May; 6(5):297-8. PubMed ID: 19394569
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Scanning the horizon of obsolete technologies: possible sources for their identification.
    Ibargoyen-Roteta N; Gutierrez-Ibarluzea I; Asua J; Benguria-Arrate G; Galnares-Cordero L
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2009 Jul; 25(3):249-54. PubMed ID: 19619342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A rapid needs assessment of the provision of Health Technology Assessment in the south-west peninsula.
    Elston J; Stein K
    J Public Health (Oxf); 2007 Jun; 29(2):157-64. PubMed ID: 17327365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Identifying and selecting new procedures for health technology assessment: a decade of nice experience in the United Kingdom.
    Campbell B; Morris R; Mandava L; Murthy L; Gallo H; Ong KJ; Latif A; Patrick H
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2014 Oct; 30(4):454-60. PubMed ID: 25412656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 5 ways to use medical technology assessments to reduce costs.
    Niederhausen J
    Healthc Financ Manage; 2014 Aug; 68(8):32. PubMed ID: 25145028
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Does 'NICE blight' exist, and if so, why?
    Haycox A
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2008; 26(12):987-9. PubMed ID: 19014200
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Evaluation in a disconnected healthcare system: problems and suggested solutions from the Australian HTA review.
    Gallego G; Harris A
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2010 Dec; 10(6):615-7. PubMed ID: 21155692
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Discounting and cost-effectiveness in NICE - stepping back to sort out a confusion.
    Claxton K; Sculpher M; Culyer A; McCabe C; Briggs A; Akehurst R; Buxton M; Brazier J
    Health Econ; 2006 Jan; 15(1):1-4. PubMed ID: 16365910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Assessing the added value of health technologies: reconciling different perspectives.
    Drummond M; Tarricone R; Torbica A
    Value Health; 2013; 16(1 Suppl):S7-13. PubMed ID: 23317646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. ECRI vice president sees need for transparency, better information.
    Montagnolo AJ
    Biomed Instrum Technol; 2012; 46(6):446-9. PubMed ID: 23171186
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Patient engagement in health technology assessment: what constitutes 'meaningful' and how we might get there.
    Abelson J
    J Health Serv Res Policy; 2018 Apr; 23(2):69-71. PubMed ID: 29411660
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Assessing the quality of health technology registers for national guidance development.
    Mandeville KL; Patrick H; McKenna T; Harris K
    Eur J Public Health; 2018 Apr; 28(2):220-223. PubMed ID: 29020400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Advantages and disadvantages of discrete-event simulation for health economic analyses.
    Caro JJ; Möller J
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2016 Jun; 16(3):327-9. PubMed ID: 26967022
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. [ETESA, spheres and STS].
    Carvajal Y
    Rev Med Chil; 2016 Apr; 144(4):534. PubMed ID: 27401388
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Methodological issues in undertaking independent cost-effectiveness analysis for NICE: the case of therapies for ADHD.
    Griffin SC; Weatherly HL; Richardson GA; Drummond MF
    Eur J Health Econ; 2008 May; 9(2):137-45. PubMed ID: 17476538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Methods for the analysis of quality-of-life and survival data in health technology assessment.
    Billingham LJ; Abrams KR; Jones DR
    Health Technol Assess; 1999; 3(10):1-152. PubMed ID: 10627631
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.