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 *

223 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16961548)

  • 1. Eliciting stated preferences for health-technology adoption criteria using paired comparisons and recommendation judgments.
    Johnson FR; Backhouse M
    Value Health; 2006; 9(5):303-11. PubMed ID: 16961548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Decision-makers' preferences for approving new medicines in Wales: a discrete-choice experiment with assessment of external validity.
    Linley WG; Hughes DA
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2013 Apr; 31(4):345-55. PubMed ID: 23516033
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis.
    Devlin N; Parkin D
    Health Econ; 2004 May; 13(5):437-52. PubMed ID: 15127424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Quality, innovation, and value for money: NICE and the British National Health Service.
    Pearson SD; Rawlins MD
    JAMA; 2005 Nov; 294(20):2618-22. PubMed ID: 16304076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means.
    McCabe C; Claxton K; Culyer AJ
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2008; 26(9):733-44. PubMed ID: 18767894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A stated preference binary choice experiment to explore NICE decision making.
    Tappenden P; Brazier J; Ratcliffe J; Chilcott J
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2007; 25(8):685-93. PubMed ID: 17640110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Seeing the NICE side of cost-effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals.
    Bryan S; Williams I; McIver S
    Health Econ; 2007 Feb; 16(2):179-93. PubMed ID: 16960851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Quality-adjusted life-years lack quality in pediatric care: a critical review of published cost-utility studies in child health.
    Griebsch I; Coast J; Brown J
    Pediatrics; 2005 May; 115(5):e600-14. PubMed ID: 15867026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. How should cost-effectiveness analysis be used in health technology coverage decisions? Evidence from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence approach.
    Williams I; Bryan S; McIver S
    J Health Serv Res Policy; 2007 Apr; 12(2):73-9. PubMed ID: 17407655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Cost-effectiveness analysis and innovation.
    Jena AB; Philipson TJ
    J Health Econ; 2008 Sep; 27(5):1224-36. PubMed ID: 18619695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Case Studies: Factors Influencing Divergent HTA Reimbursement Recommendations in Australia, Canada, England, and Scotland.
    Allen N; Walker SR; Liberti L; Salek S
    Value Health; 2017 Mar; 20(3):320-328. PubMed ID: 28292476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.
    Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
    Eur J Health Econ; 2008 Nov; 9 Suppl 1():5-29. PubMed ID: 18987905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Patients' views of explicit rationing: what are the implications for health service decision-making?
    Devlin N; Appleby J; Parkin D
    J Health Serv Res Policy; 2003 Jul; 8(3):183-6. PubMed ID: 12869346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Identifying and Revealing the Importance of Decision-Making Criteria for Health Technology Assessment: A Retrospective Analysis of Reimbursement Recommendations in Ireland.
    Schmitz S; McCullagh L; Adams R; Barry M; Walsh C
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2016 Sep; 34(9):925-37. PubMed ID: 27034245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The ISPOR Good Practices for Quality Improvement of Cost-Effectiveness Research Task Force Report.
    McGhan WF; Al M; Doshi JA; Kamae I; Marx SE; Rindress D
    Value Health; 2009; 12(8):1086-99. PubMed ID: 19744291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Quantifying benefit-risk preferences for medical interventions: an overview of a growing empirical literature.
    Brett Hauber A; Fairchild AO; Reed Johnson F
    Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2013 Aug; 11(4):319-29. PubMed ID: 23637054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Australian Public Preferences for the Funding of New Health Technologies: A Comparison of Discrete Choice and Profile Case Best-Worst Scaling Methods.
    Whitty JA; Ratcliffe J; Chen G; Scuffham PA
    Med Decis Making; 2014 Jul; 34(5):638-54. PubMed ID: 24713695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Methods for determining cost-benefit ratios for pharmaceuticals in Germany.
    von der Schulenburg J; Vauth C; Mittendorf T; Greiner W
    Eur J Health Econ; 2007 Sep; 8 Suppl 1():S5-31. PubMed ID: 17582539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Balancing costs and benefits at different stages of medical innovation: a systematic review of Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA).
    Wahlster P; Goetghebeur M; Kriza C; Niederländer C; Kolominsky-Rabas P;
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2015 Jul; 15():262. PubMed ID: 26152122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Health Preference Research in Europe: A Review of Its Use in Marketing Authorization, Reimbursement, and Pricing Decisions-Report of the ISPOR Stated Preference Research Special Interest Group.
    Marsh K; van Til JA; Molsen-David E; Juhnke C; Hawken N; Oehrlein EM; Choi YC; Duenas A; Greiner W; Haas K; Hiligsmann M; Hockley KS; Ivlev I; Liu F; Ostermann J; Poder T; Poon JL; Muehlbacher A
    Value Health; 2020 Jul; 23(7):831-841. PubMed ID: 32762984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.