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 *

147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22894708)

  • 1. A framework for assessing Health Economic Evaluation (HEE) quality appraisal instruments.
    Langer A
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2012 Aug; 12():253. PubMed ID: 22894708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A systematic review of scope and quality of health economic evaluation studies in Vietnam.
    Tran BX; Nong VM; Maher RM; Nguyen PK; Luu HN
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(8):e103825. PubMed ID: 25122180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Quality-adjusted life-years lack quality in pediatric care: a critical review of published cost-utility studies in child health.
    Griebsch I; Coast J; Brown J
    Pediatrics; 2005 May; 115(5):e600-14. PubMed ID: 15867026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Barriers to generalizability of health economic evaluations in Latin America and the Caribbean region.
    Augustovski F; Iglesias C; Manca A; Drummond M; Rubinstein A; Martí SG
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2009; 27(11):919-29. PubMed ID: 19888792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The use of economic evaluations in NHS decision-making: a review and empirical investigation.
    Williams I; McIver S; Moore D; Bryan S
    Health Technol Assess; 2008 Apr; 12(7):iii, ix-x, 1-175. PubMed ID: 18373906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Health economic evaluations of interventions to increase physical activity and decrease sedentary behavior at the workplace: a systematic review.
    Lutz N; Clarys P; Koenig I; Deliens T; Taeymans J; Verhaeghe N
    Scand J Work Environ Health; 2020 Mar; 46(2):127-142. PubMed ID: 31820003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Systematic Review of Health Economic Impact Evaluations of Risk Prediction Models: Stop Developing, Start Evaluating.
    van Giessen A; Peters J; Wilcher B; Hyde C; Moons C; de Wit A; Koffijberg E
    Value Health; 2017 Apr; 20(4):718-726. PubMed ID: 28408017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Informative value of Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) in Health Technology Assessment (HTA).
    Brettschneider C; Lühmann D; Raspe H
    GMS Health Technol Assess; 2011 Feb; 7():Doc01. PubMed ID: 21468289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A comparison of clinical practice guideline appraisal instruments.
    Graham ID; Calder LA; Hébert PC; Carter AO; Tetroe JM
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2000; 16(4):1024-38. PubMed ID: 11155826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The Effectiveness of Integrated Care Pathways for Adults and Children in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.
    Allen D; Gillen E; Rixson L
    JBI Libr Syst Rev; 2009; 7(3):80-129. PubMed ID: 27820426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Critical review and quality-assessment of cost analyses in radiotherapy: How reliable are the data?
    Defourny N; Monten C; Grau C; Lievens Y; Perrier L
    Radiother Oncol; 2019 Dec; 141():14-26. PubMed ID: 31630866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment.
    Philips Z; Ginnelly L; Sculpher M; Claxton K; Golder S; Riemsma R; Woolacoot N; Glanville J
    Health Technol Assess; 2004 Sep; 8(36):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-158. PubMed ID: 15361314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Attempt to increase the transparency of fourth hurdle implementation in Central-Eastern European middle income countries: publication of the critical appraisal methodology.
    Inotai A; Pékli M; Jóna G; Nagy O; Remák E; Kaló Z
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2012 Sep; 12():332. PubMed ID: 22999574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The measurement of collaboration within healthcare settings: a systematic review of measurement properties of instruments.
    Walters SJ; Stern C; Robertson-Malt S
    JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2016 Apr; 14(4):138-97. PubMed ID: 27532315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Specific guidelines for assessing and improving the methodological quality of economic evaluations of newborn screening.
    Langer A; Holle R; John J
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2012 Sep; 12():300. PubMed ID: 22947299
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Improving the normalization of complex interventions: part 1 - development of the NoMAD instrument for assessing implementation work based on normalization process theory (NPT).
    Rapley T; Girling M; Mair FS; Murray E; Treweek S; McColl E; Steen IN; May CR; Finch TL
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Nov; 18(1):133. PubMed ID: 30442093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Appraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review.
    Siering U; Eikermann M; Hausner E; Hoffmann-Eßer W; Neugebauer EA
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(12):e82915. PubMed ID: 24349397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. How has the impact of 'care pathway technologies' on service integration in stroke care been measured and what is the strength of the evidence to support their effectiveness in this respect?
    Allen D; Rixson L
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2008 Mar; 6(1):78-110. PubMed ID: 21631815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. How to develop cost-conscious guidelines.
    Eccles M; Mason J
    Health Technol Assess; 2001; 5(16):1-69. PubMed ID: 11427188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A review and critique of modelling in prioritising and designing screening programmes.
    Karnon J; Goyder E; Tappenden P; McPhie S; Towers I; Brazier J; Madan J
    Health Technol Assess; 2007 Dec; 11(52):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-145. PubMed ID: 18031651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.