113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17067198)
1. Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: the PRUFE framework - an integral part of Ontario's evidence-based HTPA process.
Goeree R; Levin L
Pharmacoeconomics; 2006; 24(11):1143-56. PubMed ID: 17067198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Establishing a comprehensive continuum from an evidentiary base to policy development for health technologies: the Ontario experience.
Levin L; Goeree R; Sikich N; Jorgensen B; Brouwers MC; Easty T; Zahn C
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2007; 23(3):299-309. PubMed ID: 17579931
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Reimbursement programs and health technology assessment for diabetes devices and supplies: a Canadian perspective.
Cheung RY; Mui V
J Diabetes Sci Technol; 2015 May; 9(3):706-10. PubMed ID: 25697719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Conditionally funded field evaluations and practical trial design within a health technology assessment framework.
Bowen JM; Patterson LL; O'Reilly D; Hopkins RB; Blackhouse G; Burke N; Xie F; Tarride JE; Goeree R
J Am Coll Radiol; 2009 May; 6(5):324-31. PubMed ID: 19394573
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Health technology assessment: a comprehensive framework for evidence-based recommendations in Ontario.
Johnson AP; Sikich NJ; Evans G; Evans W; Giacomini M; Glendining M; Krahn M; Levin L; Oh P; Perera C
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2009 Apr; 25(2):141-50. PubMed ID: 19366496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: when costing less means costing more.
Gafni A; Birch S
Pharmacoeconomics; 2007; 25(6):523-8; author reply 528-32. PubMed ID: 17523756
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Coverage with evidence development: the Ontario experience.
Levin L; Goeree R; Levine M; Krahn M; Easty T; Brown A; Henry D
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2011 Apr; 27(2):159-68. PubMed ID: 21473814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Health technology assessment in India: the potential for improved healthcare decision-making.
Kumar M; Ebrahim S; Taylor FC; Chokshi M; Gabbay J
Natl Med J India; 2014; 27(3):159-63. PubMed ID: 25668089
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Health technology assessment and primary data collection for reducing uncertainty in decision making.
Goeree R; Levin L; Chandra K; Bowen JM; Blackhouse G; Tarride JE; Burke N; Bischof M; Xie F; O'Reilly D
J Am Coll Radiol; 2009 May; 6(5):332-42. PubMed ID: 19394574
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Evidence-based decision-making 3: Health technology assessment.
O'Reilly D; Campbell K; Vanstone M; Bowen JM; Schwartz L; Assasi N; Goeree R
Methods Mol Biol; 2015; 1281():417-41. PubMed ID: 25694325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach.
Bombard Y; Abelson J; Simeonov D; Gauvin FP
Soc Sci Med; 2011 Jul; 73(1):135-44. PubMed ID: 21664018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [Quality of health care, accreditation, and health technology assessment in Croatia: role of agency for quality and accreditation in health].
Mittermayer R; Huić M; Mestrović J
Acta Med Croatica; 2010 Dec; 64(5):425-34. PubMed ID: 21692267
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Health technology assessment of medical devices: What is different? An overview of three European projects.
Schnell-Inderst P; Mayer J; Lauterberg J; Hunger T; Arvandi M; Conrads-Frank A; Nachtnebel A; Wild C; Siebert U
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes; 2015; 109(4-5):309-18. PubMed ID: 26354131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The prospects for medical technology in the next decade.
Moseley GB
Stud Health Technol Inform; 2005; 118():15-31. PubMed ID: 16301766
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The assessment of technology in Ontario's critical care system. Technology Subcommittee of the Working Group on Critical Care, Ontario Ministry of Health.
CMAJ; 1991 Jun; 144(12):1613-5. PubMed ID: 2054767
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Health technology assessment from a Canadian device industry perspective.
Ferrusi IL; Ames D; Lim ME; Goeree R
J Am Coll Radiol; 2009 May; 6(5):353-9. PubMed ID: 19394576
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. HEALTH TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT: REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE FOR PUBLIC HEALTHCARE SUSTAINABILITY.
Guerra-Júnior AA; Pires de Lemos LL; Godman B; Bennie M; Osorio-de-Castro CGS; Alvares J; Heaney A; Vassallo CA; Wettermark B; Benguria-Arrate G; Gutierrez-Ibarluzea I; Santos VCC; Petramale CA; Acurcio FA
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2017 Jan; 33(2):279-287. PubMed ID: 28641588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Innovation Promises and Evidence Realities.
Maschke KJ
Hastings Cent Rep; 2016 Sep; 46(5):insidefrontcover. PubMed ID: 27649835
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Health technology assessment and evidence-based policy making: Queensland Department of Health experience.
Ju H; Hewson K
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2014 Dec; 30(6):595-600. PubMed ID: 25816825
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
