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.
162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20831299)
1. Comparative effectiveness research: the view from a pharmaceutical company. Berger ML; Grainger D Pharmacoeconomics; 2010; 28(10):915-22. PubMed ID: 20831299 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. International comparison of comparative effectiveness research in five jurisdictions: insights for the US. Levy AR; Mitton C; Johnston KM; Harrigan B; Briggs AH Pharmacoeconomics; 2010; 28(10):813-30. PubMed ID: 20831289 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Health technology assessment and comparative effectiveness research: a pharmaceutical industry perspective. Hao Y; Thomas A Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2013 Aug; 13(4):447-54. PubMed ID: 23977973 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Policies for Use of Real-World Data in Health Technology Assessment (HTA): A Comparative Study of Six HTA Agencies. Makady A; Ham RT; de Boer A; Hillege H; Klungel O; Goettsch W; Value Health; 2017 Apr; 20(4):520-532. PubMed ID: 28407993 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The role of health technology assessment bodies in shaping drug development. Ciani O; Jommi C Drug Des Devel Ther; 2014; 8():2273-81. PubMed ID: 25419117 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Early dialogue with health technology assessment bodies: a European perspective. Cuche M; Beckerman R; Chowdhury CA; van Weelden MA Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2014 Dec; 30(6):571-8. PubMed ID: 25816822 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Health technology assessment of medical devices: What is different? An overview of three European projects. Schnell-Inderst P; Mayer J; Lauterberg J; Hunger T; Arvandi M; Conrads-Frank A; Nachtnebel A; Wild C; Siebert U Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes; 2015; 109(4-5):309-18. PubMed ID: 26354131 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. IS THE EUNETHTA HTA CORE MODEL® FIT FOR PURPOSE? EVALUATION FROM AN INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE. Gyldmark M; Lampe K; Ruof J; Pöhlmann J; Hebborn A; Kristensen FB Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2018 Jan; 34(5):458-463. PubMed ID: 30334508 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Building Synergy between Regulatory and HTA Agencies beyond Processes and Procedures-Can We Effectively Align the Evidentiary Requirements? A Survey of Stakeholder Perceptions. Wang T; McAuslane N; Liberti L; Leufkens H; Hövels A Value Health; 2018 Jun; 21(6):707-714. PubMed ID: 29909876 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. PAYER PERSPECTIVES ON FUTURE ACCEPTABILITY OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH. Moloney R; Mohr P; Hawe E; Shah K; Garau M; Towse A Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2015 Jan; 31(1-2):90-8. PubMed ID: 26168804 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Timely, consistent, transparent assessment of market access evidence: implementing tools based on the HTA Core Model® in a pharmaceutical company. Ducournau P; Irl C; Tatt I; McCarvil M; Gyldmark M Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2019 Jan; 35(1):10-16. PubMed ID: 30789111 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The ISPOR Good Practices for Quality Improvement of Cost-Effectiveness Research Task Force Report. McGhan WF; Al M; Doshi JA; Kamae I; Marx SE; Rindress D Value Health; 2009; 12(8):1086-99. PubMed ID: 19744291 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Strengthening cost-effectiveness analysis in Thailand through the establishment of the health intervention and technology assessment program. Tantivess S; Teerawattananon Y; Mills A Pharmacoeconomics; 2009; 27(11):931-45. PubMed ID: 19888793 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Companies' Health Technology Assessment Strategies and Practices in Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain: An Industry Metrics Study. Wang T; McAuslane N; Liberti L; Gardarsdottir H; Goettsch W; Leufkens H Front Pharmacol; 2020; 11():594549. PubMed ID: 33390978 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Impact of Postapproval Evidence Generation on the Biopharmaceutical Industry. Milne CP; Cohen JP; Felix A; Chakravarthy R Clin Ther; 2015 Aug; 37(8):1852-8. PubMed ID: 26143223 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Health Technology Assessment in Japan: A Pharmaceutical Industry Perspective. Kido K; Matsumaru N; Tsukamoto K Ther Innov Regul Sci; 2019 Jul; 53(4):472-480. PubMed ID: 30157674 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Regulatory, health technology assessment and company interactions: the current landscape and future ecosystem for drug development, review and reimbursement. Wang T; McAuslane N; Goettsch WG; Leufkens HGM; De Bruin ML Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2023 Apr; 39(1):e20. PubMed ID: 37039100 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Looking at CER from the pharmaceutical industry perspective. Dubois RW J Manag Care Pharm; 2012 May; 18(4 Suppl A):S9-12. PubMed ID: 22578212 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. It is important to note that RWD will never replace the more traditional and more robust RCT data; however, the emerging trend is to incorporate data that are more generalizable. Introduction. Mullins CD; Sanchez RJ J Manag Care Pharm; 2011; 17(9 Suppl A):S03-4. PubMed ID: 22074667 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]