BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

179 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23071227)

  • 21. Observational methods in comparative effectiveness research.
    Concato J; Lawler EV; Lew RA; Gaziano JM; Aslan M; Huang GD
    Am J Med; 2010 Dec; 123(12 Suppl 1):e16-23. PubMed ID: 21184862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The methods of comparative effectiveness research.
    Sox HC; Goodman SN
    Annu Rev Public Health; 2012 Apr; 33():425-45. PubMed ID: 22224891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Building useful evidence: changing the clinical research paradigm to account for comparative effectiveness research.
    Greenfield S; Kaplan SH
    J Comp Eff Res; 2012 May; 1(3):263-70. PubMed ID: 23577230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Comparative effectiveness research: Policy context, methods development and research infrastructure.
    Tunis SR; Benner J; McClellan M
    Stat Med; 2010 Aug; 29(19):1963-76. PubMed ID: 20564311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The refinement of topics for systematic reviews: lessons and recommendations from the Effective Health Care Program.
    Buckley DI; Ansari MT; Butler M; Soh C; Chang CS
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 Apr; 67(4):425-32. PubMed ID: 24581296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Defining comparative effectiveness research: the importance of getting it right.
    Sox HC
    Med Care; 2010 Jun; 48(6 Suppl):S7-8. PubMed ID: 20473202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management, part I: introduction and general considerations.
    Manchikanti L
    Pain Physician; 2008; 11(2):161-86. PubMed ID: 18354710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Updating comparative effectiveness reviews: current efforts in AHRQ's Effective Health Care Program.
    Tsertsvadze A; Maglione M; Chou R; Garritty C; Coleman C; Lux L; Bass E; Balshem H; Moher D
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2011 Nov; 64(11):1208-15. PubMed ID: 21684114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The role of observational investigations in comparative effectiveness research.
    Marko NF; Weil RJ
    Value Health; 2010 Dec; 13(8):989-97. PubMed ID: 21138497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of real world data comparative effectiveness research of systemic therapies in lung oncology: A systematic review.
    Peters BJM; Janssen VEMT; Schramel FM; van de Garde EMW
    Cancer Epidemiol; 2016 Oct; 44():5-15. PubMed ID: 27449577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. What comparative effectiveness research is needed? A framework for using guidelines and systematic reviews to identify evidence gaps and research priorities.
    Li T; Vedula SS; Scherer R; Dickersin K
    Ann Intern Med; 2012 Mar; 156(5):367-77. PubMed ID: 22393132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Leveraging observational registries to inform comparative effectiveness research.
    Shah BR; Drozda J; Peterson ED
    Am Heart J; 2010 Jul; 160(1):8-15. PubMed ID: 20598966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The case for a comparative, value-based alternative to the patient-centered outcomes research model for comparative effectiveness research.
    Marko NF; Weil RJ
    Neurosurg Focus; 2012 Jul; 33(1):E8. PubMed ID: 22746240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The effectiveness of internet-based e-learning on clinician behavior and patient outcomes: a systematic review protocol.
    Sinclair P; Kable A; Levett-Jones T
    JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2015 Jan; 13(1):52-64. PubMed ID: 26447007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Infusion of statistical science in comparative effectiveness research.
    Morton SC; Ellenberg JH
    Clin Trials; 2012 Feb; 9(1):6-12. PubMed ID: 22334463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: implications for clinical practice and health care policy.
    Ahmed S; Berzon RA; Revicki DA; Lenderking WR; Moinpour CM; Basch E; Reeve BB; Wu AW;
    Med Care; 2012 Dec; 50(12):1060-70. PubMed ID: 22922434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The impact of comparative effectiveness research on interventional pain management: evolution from Medicare Modernization Act to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
    Manchikanti L; Falco FJ; Benyamin RM; Helm S; Parr AT; Hirsch JA
    Pain Physician; 2011; 14(3):E249-82. PubMed ID: 21587337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Systematic reviews in laboratory medicine: principles, processes and practical considerations.
    Horvath AR; Pewsner D
    Clin Chim Acta; 2004 Apr; 342(1-2):23-39. PubMed ID: 15026264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Using evidence in pain practice: Part I: Assessing quality of systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines.
    Chou R
    Pain Med; 2008; 9(5):518-30. PubMed ID: 18346062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Comparative effectiveness research, genomics-enabled personalized medicine, and rapid learning health care: a common bond.
    Ginsburg GS; Kuderer NM
    J Clin Oncol; 2012 Dec; 30(34):4233-42. PubMed ID: 23071236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.