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 *

174 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20230549)

  • 1. Analysis of health utility data when some subjects attain the upper bound of 1: are Tobit and CLAD models appropriate?
    Pullenayegum EM; Tarride JE; Xie F; Goeree R; Gerstein HC; O'Reilly D
    Value Health; 2010; 13(4):487-94. PubMed ID: 20230549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Using the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale to estimate health state utility values: mapping from the MSIS-29, version 2, to the EQ-5D and the SF-6D.
    Hawton A; Green C; Telford C; Zajicek J; Wright D
    Value Health; 2012 Dec; 15(8):1084-91. PubMed ID: 23244811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Calculating utility decrements associated with an adverse event: marginal Tobit and CLAD coefficients should be used with caution.
    Pullenayegum EM; Tarride JE; Xie F; O'Reilly D
    Med Decis Making; 2011; 31(6):790-9. PubMed ID: 22067429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Preference-Based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States.
    Sullivan PW; Ghushchyan V
    Med Decis Making; 2006; 26(4):410-20. PubMed ID: 16855129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Estimating preference-based health utilities index mark 3 utility scores for childhood conditions in England and Scotland.
    Petrou S; Kupek E
    Med Decis Making; 2009; 29(3):291-303. PubMed ID: 19264726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Predicting utility for joint health states: a general framework and a new nonparametric estimator.
    Bo Hu ; Fu AZ
    Med Decis Making; 2010; 30(5):E29-39. PubMed ID: 20643911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A comparison of methods to handle skew distributed cost variables in the analysis of the resource consumption in schizophrenia treatment.
    Kilian R; Matschinger H; Löeffler W; Roick C; Angermeyer MC
    J Ment Health Policy Econ; 2002 Mar; 5(1):21-31. PubMed ID: 12529567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The use of the Tobit model for analyzing measures of health status.
    Austin PC; Escobar M; Kopec JA
    Qual Life Res; 2000; 9(8):901-10. PubMed ID: 11284209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Tails from the peak district: adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models of EQ-5D questionnaire health state utility values.
    Hernández Alava M; Wailoo AJ; Ara R
    Value Health; 2012 May; 15(3):550-61. PubMed ID: 22583466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Tobit model for outcome variable is limited by censoring in nursing research.
    Lin KC; Cheng SF
    Nurs Res; 2011; 60(5):354-60. PubMed ID: 21873917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Estimating CHU-9D Utility Scores from the WAItE: A Mapping Algorithm for Economic Evaluation.
    Robinson T; Oluboyede Y
    Value Health; 2019 Feb; 22(2):239-246. PubMed ID: 30711070
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Mapping expanded prostate cancer index composite to EQ5D utilities to inform economic evaluations in prostate cancer: Secondary analysis of NRG/RTOG 0415.
    Khairnar R; Pugh SL; Sandler HM; Lee WR; Villalonga Olives E; Mullins CD; Palumbo FB; Bruner DW; Shaya FT; Bentzen SM; Shah AB; Malone SC; Michalski JM; Dayes IS; Seaward SA; Albert M; Currey AD; Pisansky TM; Chen Y; Horwitz EM; DeNittis AS; Feng FY; Mishra MV
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(4):e0249123. PubMed ID: 33852571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Predicting utility ratings for joint health States from single health States in prostate cancer: empirical testing of 3 alternative theories.
    Dale W; Basu A; Elstein A; Meltzer D
    Med Decis Making; 2008; 28(1):102-12. PubMed ID: 18057188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A comparison of methods for analyzing health-related quality-of-life measures.
    Austin PC
    Value Health; 2002; 5(4):329-37. PubMed ID: 12102695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Non-parametric estimators of a monotonic dose-response curve and bootstrap confidence intervals.
    Dilleen M; Heimann G; Hirsch I
    Stat Med; 2003 Mar; 22(6):869-82. PubMed ID: 12627406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A study on confidence intervals for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.
    Wang H; Zhao H
    Biom J; 2008 Aug; 50(4):505-14. PubMed ID: 18663759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Mapping utilities from cancer-specific health-related quality of life instruments: a review of the literature.
    McTaggart-Cowan H; Teckle P; Peacock S
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2013 Dec; 13(6):753-65. PubMed ID: 24219051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The use of bootstrap methods for estimating sample size and analysing health-related quality of life outcomes.
    Walters SJ; Campbell MJ
    Stat Med; 2005 Apr; 24(7):1075-102. PubMed ID: 15570625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Joint Utility Estimators in Substance Use Disorders.
    Wittenberg E; Bray JW; Gebremariam A; Aden B; Nosyk B; Schackman BR
    Value Health; 2017 Mar; 20(3):458-465. PubMed ID: 28292491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The use of multiple sclerosis condition-specific measures to inform health policy decision-making: mapping from the MSWS-12 to the EQ-5D.
    Hawton A; Green C; Telford CJ; Wright DE; Zajicek JP
    Mult Scler; 2012 Jun; 18(6):853-61. PubMed ID: 22108867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.