69 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17888102)
1. Economic evaluation of a Bayesian model to predict late-phase success of new chemical entities.
Schachter AD; Ramoni MF; Baio G; Roberts TG; Finkelstein SN
Value Health; 2007; 10(5):377-85. PubMed ID: 17888102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Research and development costs for new drugs by therapeutic category. A study of the US pharmaceutical industry.
DiMasi JA; Hansen RW; Grabowski HG; Lasagna L
Pharmacoeconomics; 1995 Feb; 7(2):152-69. PubMed ID: 10155302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Research activity on systemic contraceptive drugs by the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, 1963-1976.
DiRaddo J; Wardell WM
Contraception; 1981 Apr; 23(4):345-65. PubMed ID: 7273757
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Assessing the success probability of a Phase III clinical trial based on Phase II data.
Su Z
Contemp Clin Trials; 2010 Nov; 31(6):620-3. PubMed ID: 20713180
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Cost of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry.
DiMasi JA; Hansen RW; Grabowski HG; Lasagna L
J Health Econ; 1991 Jul; 10(2):107-42. PubMed ID: 10113009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A comparative analysis of the impact of a positive list system on new chemical entity drugs and incrementally modified drugs in South Korea.
Ha D; Choi Y; Kim DU; Chung KH; Lee EK
Clin Ther; 2011 Jul; 33(7):926-32. PubMed ID: 21715008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 25 years of Bayesian methods in the pharmaceutical industry: a personal, statistical bummel.
Grieve AP
Pharm Stat; 2007; 6(4):261-81. PubMed ID: 17955514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The costs of conducting clinical research.
Emanuel EJ; Schnipper LE; Kamin DY; Levinson J; Lichter AS
J Clin Oncol; 2003 Nov; 21(22):4145-50. PubMed ID: 14559889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Rising research and development costs for new drugs in a cost containment environment.
DiMasi JA
Pharmacoeconomics; 1992; 1(Suppl 1):13-20. PubMed ID: 10146926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Economics of new oncology drug development.
DiMasi JA; Grabowski HG
J Clin Oncol; 2007 Jan; 25(2):209-16. PubMed ID: 17210942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Vehicle selection for nonclinical oral safety studies.
Thackaberry EA
Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol; 2013 Dec; 9(12):1635-46. PubMed ID: 24074031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. New drug development by United States pharmaceutical firms with analyses of trends in the acquisition and origin of drug candidates, 1963-1979.
Wardell WM; May MS; Trimble AG
Clin Pharmacol Ther; 1982 Oct; 32(4):407-17. PubMed ID: 7116754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A pharmacoeconomic modeling approach to estimate a value-based price for new oncology drugs in Europe.
Dranitsaris G; Ortega A; Lubbe MS; Truter I
J Oncol Pharm Pract; 2012 Mar; 18(1):57-67. PubMed ID: 21382915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The rate of development of new drugs in the United States, 1963 through 1975.
Wardell WM; Hassar M; Anavekar SN; Lasagna L
Clin Pharmacol Ther; 1978 Aug; 24(2):133-45. PubMed ID: 679593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Drug costs: research and development costs: the great illusion.
Prescrire Int; 2004 Feb; 13(69):32-6. PubMed ID: 15055226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Company stock prices before and after public announcements related to oncology drugs.
Rothenstein JM; Tomlinson G; Tannock IF; Detsky AS
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2011 Oct; 103(20):1507-12. PubMed ID: 21949081
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A closer look at the returns and risk of pharmaceutical R&D.
Joglekar P; Paterson ML
J Health Econ; 1986 Jun; 5(2):153-77. PubMed ID: 10287224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Predicting the outcome of phase III trials using phase II data: a case study of clinical trial simulation in late stage drug development.
De Ridder F
Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol; 2005 Mar; 96(3):235-41. PubMed ID: 15733220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Bayesian semiparametric predictive modeling with applications in dose-response prediction.
Haaland B; Chiang AY
J Biopharm Stat; 2014; 24(2):294-309. PubMed ID: 24605970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Biomarker-based Bayesian randomized phase II clinical trial design to identify a sensitive patient subpopulation.
Morita S; Yamamoto H; Sugitani Y
Stat Med; 2014 Oct; 33(23):4008-16. PubMed ID: 24820639
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
