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 *

260 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20465315)

  • 21. Assessment of the Quality of the Clinical Evidence in Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: Fit for Purpose?
    Wonder M; Dunlop S
    Value Health; 2015 Jun; 18(4):467-76. PubMed ID: 26091601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. What Can We Expect from Value-Based Funding of Medicines? A Retrospective Study.
    Harris A; Li JJ; Yong K
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2016 Apr; 34(4):393-402. PubMed ID: 26610347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Delays in access to affordable medicines: putting policy into perspective.
    Pearce A; van Gool K; Haywood P; Haas M
    Aust Health Rev; 2012 Nov; 36(4):412-8. PubMed ID: 23062753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: a retrospective analysis 1994-2004.
    Harris AH; Hill SR; Chin G; Li JJ; Walkom E
    Med Decis Making; 2008; 28(5):713-22. PubMed ID: 18378939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. How Data Packages Lacking Phase III Pivotal Trial Data Can Support Regulatory Approval and Reimbursement for Oncologics in Australia.
    Macaulay R; Siddiqui MK; Stoddart S
    Value Health Reg Issues; 2015 May; 6():143-149. PubMed ID: 29698188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Medicine reimbursement recommendations in Canada, Australia, and Scotland.
    Lexchin J; Mintzes B
    Am J Manag Care; 2008 Sep; 14(9):581-8. PubMed ID: 18778173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. National reimbursement listing determinants of new cancer drugs: a retrospective analysis of 58 cancer treatment appraisals in 2007-2016 in South Korea.
    Kim ES; Kim JA; Lee EK
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2017 Aug; 17(4):401-409. PubMed ID: 28010146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Health Technology Assessment in Australia: The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and Medical Services Advisory Committee.
    Kim H; Byrnes J; Goodall S;
    Value Health Reg Issues; 2021 May; 24():6-11. PubMed ID: 33429153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. A Time-Trend Economic Analysis of Cancer Drug Trials.
    Cressman S; Browman GP; Hoch JS; Kovacic L; Peacock SJ
    Oncologist; 2015 Jul; 20(7):729-36. PubMed ID: 26032135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for ovarian cancer.
    Forbes C; Shirran L; Bagnall AM; Duffy S; ter Riet G
    Health Technol Assess; 2001; 5(28):1-110. PubMed ID: 11701100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Analysis of consumer comments into PBAC decision-making (2014-9).
    Tjeuw E; Wonder MJ
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2022 Feb; 38(1):e18. PubMed ID: 35115073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. [The Swedish Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency's willingness to pay for new drugs has been analyzed].
    Svensson M; Nilsson F
    Lakartidningen; 2016 Jul; 113():. PubMed ID: 27404777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Rising cost of anticancer drugs in Australia.
    Karikios DJ; Schofield D; Salkeld G; Mann KP; Trotman J; Stockler MR
    Intern Med J; 2014 May; 44(5):458-63. PubMed ID: 24612257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Is the quality of evidence in health technology assessment deteriorating over time? A case study on cancer drugs in Australia.
    Gao Y; Laka M; Merlin T
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2023 May; 39(1):e28. PubMed ID: 37198927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Bring Out Your Dead: A Review of the Cost Minimisation Approach in Health Technology Assessment Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.
    Tirrell Z; Norman A; Hoyle M; Lybrand S; Parkinson B
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2024 Nov; 42(11):1287-1300. PubMed ID: 39182009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The Relative Importance of Clinical, Economic, Patient Values and Feasibility Criteria in Cancer Drug Reimbursement in Canada: A Revealed Preferences Analysis of Recommendations of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review 2011-2017.
    Skedgel C; Wranik D; Hu M
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2018 Apr; 36(4):467-475. PubMed ID: 29353385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Same drugs, valued differently? Comparing comparators and methods used in reimbursement recommendations in Australia, Canada, and Korea.
    Bae G; Bae EY; Bae S
    Health Policy; 2015 May; 119(5):577-87. PubMed ID: 25666339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Appraisals by Health Technology Assessment Agencies of Economic Evaluations Submitted as Part of Reimbursement Dossiers for Oncology Treatments: Evidence from Canada, the UK, and Australia.
    Ball G; Levine MAH; Thabane L; Tarride JE
    Curr Oncol; 2022 Oct; 29(10):7624-7636. PubMed ID: 36290879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.