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 *

128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20525460)

  • 41. Setting the Weights: The Women's Capabilities Index for Malawi.
    Greco G
    Soc Indic Res; 2018; 135(2):457-478. PubMed ID: 29398769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Discounting and decision making in the economic evaluation of health-care technologies.
    Claxton K; Paulden M; Gravelle H; Brouwer W; Culyer AJ
    Health Econ; 2011 Jan; 20(1):2-15. PubMed ID: 21154521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Estimating a WTP-based value of a QALY: the 'chained' approach.
    Robinson A; Gyrd-Hansen D; Bacon P; Baker R; Pennington M; Donaldson C;
    Soc Sci Med; 2013 Sep; 92():92-104. PubMed ID: 23849283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. The value of a QALY towards the end of life and its determinants: Experimental evidence.
    Fischer B; Telser H; Zweifel P; von Wyl V; Beck K; Weber A
    Soc Sci Med; 2023 Jun; 326():115909. PubMed ID: 37121067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Attributes Development for Pharmaceutical Subsidization: A Qualitative Study.
    Afsharmanesh G; Mehralian G; Peiravian F
    Iran J Pharm Res; 2020; 19(1):203-217. PubMed ID: 32922481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands.
    Nicolet A; van Asselt ADI; Vermeulen KM; Krabbe PFM
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(7):e0235666. PubMed ID: 32645035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Using a stated preference discrete choice experiment to assess societal value from the perspective of decision-makers in Europe. Does it work for rare diseases?
    López-Bastida J; Ramos-Goñi JM; Aranda-Reneo I; Trapero-Bertran M; Kanavos P; Rodriguez Martin B
    Health Policy; 2019 Feb; 123(2):152-158. PubMed ID: 30528244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Comparison of Equity Preferences for Life Expectancy Gains: A Discrete Choice Experiment Among the Japanese and Korean General Public.
    Goto R; Mori T
    Value Health Reg Issues; 2019 May; 18():8-13. PubMed ID: 30412915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Who should receive treatment? An empirical enquiry into the relationship between societal views and preferences concerning healthcare priority setting.
    Reckers-Droog V; van Exel J; Brouwer W
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(6):e0198761. PubMed ID: 29949648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Public engagement in setting healthcare priorities: a ranking exercise in Cyprus.
    Farmakas A; Theodorou M; Galanis P; Karayiannis G; Ghobrial S; Polyzos N; Papastavrou E; Agapidaki E; Souliotis K
    Cost Eff Resour Alloc; 2017; 15():16. PubMed ID: 28808427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Valuing QALYs in Relation to Equity Considerations Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.
    van de Wetering L; van Exel J; Bobinac A; Brouwer WB
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2015 Dec; 33(12):1289-300. PubMed ID: 26232199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold.
    Claxton K; Martin S; Soares M; Rice N; Spackman E; Hinde S; Devlin N; Smith PC; Sculpher M
    Health Technol Assess; 2015 Feb; 19(14):1-503, v-vi. PubMed ID: 25692211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Are some QALYs more equal than others?
    van de Wetering EJ; van Exel NJ; Rose JM; Hoefman RJ; Brouwer WB
    Eur J Health Econ; 2016 Mar; 17(2):117-27. PubMed ID: 25479937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Societal preferences for distributive justice in the allocation of health care resources: a latent class discrete choice experiment.
    Skedgel C; Wailoo A; Akehurst R
    Med Decis Making; 2015 Jan; 35(1):94-105. PubMed ID: 25145575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting.
    Whitty JA; Lancsar E; Rixon K; Golenko X; Ratcliffe J
    Patient; 2014; 7(4):365-86. PubMed ID: 24872225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Societal views on NICE, cancer drugs fund and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: a cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain.
    Linley WG; Hughes DA
    Health Econ; 2013 Aug; 22(8):948-64. PubMed ID: 22961976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Does responsibility affect the public's valuation of health care interventions? A relative valuation approach to health care safety.
    Singh J; Lord J; Longworth L; Orr S; McGarry T; Sheldon R; Buxton M
    Value Health; 2012; 15(5):690-8. PubMed ID: 22867778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Efficiency and equity: a stated preference approach.
    Norman R; Hall J; Street D; Viney R
    Health Econ; 2013 May; 22(5):568-81. PubMed ID: 22529053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Eliciting public preference for health-care resource allocation in South Korea.
    Lim MK; Bae EY; Choi SE; Lee EK; Lee TJ
    Value Health; 2012; 15(1 Suppl):S91-4. PubMed ID: 22265075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Age as a criterion for setting priorities in health care? A survey of the German public view.
    Diederich A; Winkelhage J; Wirsik N
    PLoS One; 2011; 6(8):e23930. PubMed ID: 21904600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.