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 *

184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19366496)

  • 61. Decision-making and evidence use during the process of prenatal record review in Canada: a multiphase qualitative study.
    Semenic S; Edwards N; Premji S; Olson J; Williams B; Montgomery P
    BMC Pregnancy Childbirth; 2015 Mar; 15():78. PubMed ID: 25881034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. 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]  

  • 63. [Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany].
    Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
    Dtsch Med Wochenschr; 2008 Dec; 133 Suppl 7():S225-46. PubMed ID: 19034813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study.
    Singer PA; Martin DK; Giacomini M; Purdy L
    BMJ; 2000 Nov; 321(7272):1316-8. PubMed ID: 11090513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. The Role of Noncomparative Evidence in Health Technology Assessment Decisions.
    Griffiths EA; Macaulay R; Vadlamudi NK; Uddin J; Samuels ER
    Value Health; 2017 Dec; 20(10):1245-1251. PubMed ID: 29241883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. Conditionally funded field evaluations: PATHs coverage with evidence development program for Ontario.
    Goeree R; Chandra K; Tarride JE; O'Reilly D; Xie F; Bowen J; Blackhouse G; Hopkins R
    Value Health; 2010 Jun; 13 Suppl 1():S8-11. PubMed ID: 20618796
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. An ethical framework for evaluation of public health plans: a systematic process for legitimate and fair decision-making.
    Akrami F; Zali A; Abbasi M; Majdzadeh R; Karimi A; Fadavi M; Mehrabi Bahar A
    Public Health; 2018 Nov; 164():30-38. PubMed ID: 30170266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Towards a Transparent, Credible, Evidence-Based Decision-Making Process of New Drug Listing on the Hong Kong Hospital Authority Drug Formulary: Challenges and Suggestions.
    Wong CKH; Wu O; Cheung BMY
    Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2018 Feb; 16(1):5-14. PubMed ID: 28702874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. 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]  

  • 70. Healthcare technology assessment: methods, framework, and role in policy making.
    Goodman CS
    Am J Manag Care; 1998 Sep; 4 Spec No():SP200-14; quiz SP215-6. PubMed ID: 10185995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Reflections on science, judgment, and value in evidence-based decision making: a conversation with David Eddy by Sean R. Tunis.
    Eddy D
    Health Aff (Millwood); 2007; 26(4):w500-15. PubMed ID: 17580317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Evidence-based decision-making within Australia's pharmaceutical benefits scheme.
    Lopert R
    Issue Brief (Commonw Fund); 2009 Jul; 60():1-13. PubMed ID: 19639714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. Value-Based Assessment of New Medical Technologies: Towards a Robust Methodological Framework for the Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis in the Context of Health Technology Assessment.
    Angelis A; Kanavos P
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2016 May; 34(5):435-46. PubMed ID: 26739955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. 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]  

  • 75. Decision-making frameworks and considerations for informing coverage decisions for healthcare interventions: a critical interpretive synthesis.
    Morgan RL; Kelley L; Guyatt GH; Johnson A; Lavis JN
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Feb; 94():143-150. PubMed ID: 28988959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. [Ethics in health technology assessment. Review].
    García-León FJ
    J Healthc Qual Res; 2019; 34(1):20-28. PubMed ID: 30723066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. A cross-sectional survey of supports for evidence-informed decision-making in healthcare organisations: a research protocol.
    Ouimet M; Lavis JN; Léon G; Ellen ME; Bédard PO; Grimshaw JM; Gagnon MP
    Implement Sci; 2014 Oct; 9():146. PubMed ID: 25294109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Comparative effectiveness research in Ontario, Canada: producing relevant and timely information for health care decision makers.
    Whicher DM; Chalkidou K; Dhalla IA; Levin L; Tunis S
    Milbank Q; 2009 Sep; 87(3):585-606. PubMed ID: 19751283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Optimizing the delivery of genetic and advanced diagnostic testing in the province of Ontario: challenges and implications for laboratory technology assessment and management in decentralized healthcare systems.
    Husereau D; Sullivan T; Feilotter HE; Gomes MM; Juergens R; Sheffield BS; Kassam S; Stockley TL; Jacobs P
    J Med Econ; 2022; 25(1):993-1004. PubMed ID: 35850613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Evidence, values, and funding decisions in Canadian cancer systems.
    Peacock SJ; Regier DA; Raymakers AJN; Chan KKW
    Healthc Manage Forum; 2019 Nov; 32(6):293-298. PubMed ID: 31645144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.