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: 20961647)

  • 1. Priority setting for orphan drugs: an international comparison.
    Rosenberg-Yunger ZR; Daar AS; Thorsteinsdóttir H; Martin DK
    Health Policy; 2011 Apr; 100(1):25-34. PubMed ID: 20961647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Stakeholder involvement in expensive drug recommendation decisions: an international perspective.
    Rosenberg-Yunger ZR; Thorsteinsdóttir H; Daar AS; Martin DK
    Health Policy; 2012 May; 105(2-3):226-35. PubMed ID: 22226141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Common drug review recommendations for orphan drugs in Canada: basis of recommendations and comparison with similar reviews in Quebec, Australia, Scotland and New Zealand.
    McCormick JI; Berescu LD; Tadros N
    Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2018 Jan; 13(1):27. PubMed ID: 29382371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Authorization and reimbursement of orphan drugs in an international comparison].
    Roll K; Stargardt T; Schreyögg J
    Gesundheitswesen; 2011 Aug; 73(8-9):504-14. PubMed ID: 20848380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada.
    Clement FM; Harris A; Li JJ; Yong K; Lee KM; Manns BJ
    JAMA; 2009 Oct; 302(13):1437-43. PubMed ID: 19809025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Developing a patient-directed policy framework for managing orphan and ultra-orphan drugs throughout their lifecycle.
    Menon D; Stafinski T; Dunn A; Wong-Rieger D
    Patient; 2015 Feb; 8(1):103-17. PubMed ID: 25559762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: a qualitative case study.
    Martin DK; Pater JL; Singer PA
    Lancet; 2001 Nov; 358(9294):1676-81. PubMed ID: 11728542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Do Reimbursement Recommendations by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health Translate Into Coverage Decisions for Orphan Drugs in the Canadian Province of Ontario?
    Fontrier AM; Kanavos P
    Value Health; 2023 Jul; 26(7):1011-1021. PubMed ID: 36889379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Priority setting at the micro-, meso- and macro-levels in Canada, Norway and Uganda.
    Kapiriri L; Norheim OF; Martin DK
    Health Policy; 2007 Jun; 82(1):78-94. PubMed ID: 17034898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Priority setting for high cost medications (HCMs) in public hospitals in Australia: a case study.
    Gallego G; Taylor SJ; Brien JA
    Health Policy; 2007 Nov; 84(1):58-66. PubMed ID: 17618009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Risk management frameworks for human health and environmental risks.
    Jardine C; Hrudey S; Shortreed J; Craig L; Krewski D; Furgal C; McColl S
    J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev; 2003; 6(6):569-720. PubMed ID: 14698953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Why orphan drug coverage reimbursement decision-making needs patient and public involvement.
    Douglas CM; Wilcox E; Burgess M; Lynd LD
    Health Policy; 2015 May; 119(5):588-96. PubMed ID: 25641123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Centralized drug review processes: are they fair?
    Mitton CR; McMahon M; Morgan S; Gibson J
    Soc Sci Med; 2006 Jul; 63(1):200-11. PubMed ID: 16427728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Orphan drugs policies: a suitable case for treatment.
    Drummond M; Towse A
    Eur J Health Econ; 2014 May; 15(4):335-40. PubMed ID: 24435513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Influencing Factors of Health Technology Assessment to Orphan Drugs: Empirical Evidence in England, Scotland, Canada, and Australia.
    Zhou N; Ji H; Li Z; Hu J; Xie JH; Feng YH; Yuan N
    Front Public Health; 2022; 10():861067. PubMed ID: 35784205
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Reimbursement of orphan drugs in Belgium: what (else) matters?
    Picavet E; Cassiman D; Simoens S
    Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2014 Sep; 9():139. PubMed ID: 25208770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Orphan drugs: the regulatory environment.
    Franco P
    Drug Discov Today; 2013 Feb; 18(3-4):163-72. PubMed ID: 22981668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Challenges in measuring the societal value of orphan drugs: insights from a canadian stated preference survey.
    Dragojlovic N; Rizzardo S; Bansback N; Mitton C; Marra CA; Lynd LD
    Patient; 2015 Feb; 8(1):93-101. PubMed ID: 25586645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. How should cost-effectiveness analysis be used in health technology coverage decisions? Evidence from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence approach.
    Williams I; Bryan S; McIver S
    J Health Serv Res Policy; 2007 Apr; 12(2):73-9. PubMed ID: 17407655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.