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 *

113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17067198)

  • 21. Assessing the impacts of citizen deliberations on the health technology process.
    Abelson J; Bombard Y; Gauvin FP; Simeonov D; Boesveld S
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2013 Jul; 29(3):282-9. PubMed ID: 23863188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Development of health technology assessment in China: New challenges.
    Chen Y; He Y; Chi X; Wei Y; Shi L
    Biosci Trends; 2018; 12(2):102-108. PubMed ID: 29760354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The use of exploratory analyses within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence single technology appraisal process: an evaluation and qualitative analysis.
    Kaltenthaler E; Carroll C; Hill-McManus D; Scope A; Holmes M; Rice S; Rose M; Tappenden P; Woolacott N
    Health Technol Assess; 2016 Apr; 20(26):1-48. PubMed ID: 27049841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Policies for fostering health science, technology and innovation in Brazil and the role of clinical research.
    Tenório M; Mello GA; Viana ALD
    Cien Saude Colet; 2017 May; 22(5):1441-1454. PubMed ID: 28538916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Early awareness and alert systems for medical technologies in Israel.
    Tal O; Hakak N
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2012 Jul; 28(3):333-8. PubMed ID: 22980713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. A research roadmap for complementary and alternative medicine - what we need to know by 2020.
    Fischer F; Lewith G; Witt CM; Linde K; von Ammon K; Cardini F; Falkenberg T; Fønnebø V; Johannessen H; Reiter B; Uehleke B; Weidenhammer W; Brinkhaus B
    Forsch Komplementmed; 2014; 21(2):e1-16. PubMed ID: 24851850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Policy formulation and technology assessment.
    Banta HD; Behney CJ
    Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc; 1981; 59(3):445-79. PubMed ID: 6792555
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Health technology assessment: what is it? Current status and perspectives in the field of electrophysiology.
    Fattore G; Maniadakis N; Mantovani LG; Boriani G
    Europace; 2011 May; 13 Suppl 2():ii49-53. PubMed ID: 21518750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Health technology assessment.
    Hailey D
    Singapore Med J; 2006 Mar; 47(3):187-92; quiz 193. PubMed ID: 16518551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Technology for health in the future.
    Wasunna AE; Wyper DY
    World Health Stat Q; 1998; 51(1):33-43. PubMed ID: 9675807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. A common policy framework for evidence generation on promising health technologies.
    Carbonneil C; Quentin F; Lee-Robin SH;
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2009 Dec; 25 Suppl 2():56-67. PubMed ID: 20030892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Medical technology assessment: economic evaluation of new technologies.
    Adang EM; Dirksen CD; Engel GL; Baeten CG
    Br J Hosp Med; 1995 Jun 7-20; 53(11):563-6. PubMed ID: 7655753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Comprehensive Drug-Class Review Framework for improved evidence-based drug policy and formulary modernization.
    Tadrous M; Knowles S; Ruddock B; Oh P; Mamdani MM; Juurlink DN; Gomes T
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2020; 36(1):12-19. PubMed ID: 31796132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Medical technology management: bridging the gap between theory and practice.
    Shemer J; Abadi-Korek I; Seifan A
    Isr Med Assoc J; 2005 Apr; 7(4):211-5. PubMed ID: 15847198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four European countries.
    Nicod E
    Eur J Health Econ; 2017 Jul; 18(6):715-730. PubMed ID: 27538758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The ethics of attaching research conditions to access to new health technologies.
    Holland S; Hope T
    J Med Ethics; 2012 Jun; 38(6):366-71. PubMed ID: 22345547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Selecting digital health technologies for validation and piloting by healthcare providers: a decision-making perspective from ontario.
    Chahal A; Rudnick A
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2019 Jan; 35(1):1-4. PubMed ID: 30714547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on good research practices--budget impact analysis.
    Mauskopf JA; Sullivan SD; Annemans L; Caro J; Mullins CD; Nuijten M; Orlewska E; Watkins J; Trueman P
    Value Health; 2007; 10(5):336-47. PubMed ID: 17888098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. [Forecasting medical technologies--a global overview].
    Tal O
    Harefuah; 2011 Feb; 150(2):185-9, 202. PubMed ID: 22164951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. How to design the cost-effectiveness appraisal process of new healthcare technologies to maximise population health: A conceptual framework.
    Johannesen KM; Claxton K; Sculpher MJ; Wailoo AJ
    Health Econ; 2018 Feb; 27(2):e41-e54. PubMed ID: 28833844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.