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 *

180 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23403392)

  • 1. Do different clinical evidence bases lead to discordant health-technology assessment decisions? An in-depth case series across three jurisdictions.
    Spinner DS; Birt J; Walter JW; Bowman L; Mauskopf J; Drummond MF; Copley-Merriman C
    Clinicoecon Outcomes Res; 2013; 5():69-85. PubMed ID: 23403392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Appraisals by Health Technology Assessment Agencies of Economic Evaluations Submitted as Part of Reimbursement Dossiers for Oncology Treatments: Evidence from Canada, the UK, and Australia.
    Ball G; Levine MAH; Thabane L; Tarride JE
    Curr Oncol; 2022 Oct; 29(10):7624-7636. PubMed ID: 36290879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Case Studies: Factors Influencing Divergent HTA Reimbursement Recommendations in Australia, Canada, England, and Scotland.
    Allen N; Walker SR; Liberti L; Salek S
    Value Health; 2017 Mar; 20(3):320-328. PubMed ID: 28292476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Medicine reimbursement recommendations in Canada, Australia, and Scotland.
    Lexchin J; Mintzes B
    Am J Manag Care; 2008 Sep; 14(9):581-8. PubMed ID: 18778173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Comparative Assessment of Reimbursement Recommendations by NICE and HAS for Oncology New Medicines Indicated for the Treatment of Solid Tumors from 2015 to 2021.
    Trouiller JB; Laramée P
    Med Decis Making; 2023; 43(7-8):961-972. PubMed ID: 37480275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Justifying the source of external comparators in single-arm oncology health technology submissions: a review of NICE and PBAC assessments.
    Appiah K; Rizzo M; Sarri G; Hernandez L
    J Comp Eff Res; 2024 Feb; 13(2):e230140. PubMed ID: 38174576
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Same drugs, valued differently? Comparing comparators and methods used in reimbursement recommendations in Australia, Canada, and Korea.
    Bae G; Bae EY; Bae S
    Health Policy; 2015 May; 119(5):577-87. PubMed ID: 25666339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Health benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals: An international comparison of decisions from Germany, England, Scotland and Australia.
    Fischer KE; Heisser T; Stargardt T
    Health Policy; 2016 Oct; 120(10):1115-1122. PubMed ID: 27628196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Oncology drug health technology assessment recommendations: Canadian versus UK experiences.
    Chabot I; Rocchi A
    Clinicoecon Outcomes Res; 2014; 6():357-67. PubMed ID: 25075196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Towards a Transparent, Credible, Evidence-Based Decision-Making Process of New Drug Listing on the Hong Kong Hospital Authority Drug Formulary: Challenges and Suggestions.
    Wong CKH; Wu O; Cheung BMY
    Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2018 Feb; 16(1):5-14. PubMed ID: 28702874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A comparative study of drug listing recommendations and the decision-making process in Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK.
    Salas-Vega S; Bertling A; Mossialos E
    Health Policy; 2016 Oct; 120(10):1104-1114. PubMed ID: 27665497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Are cancer drugs less likely to be recommended for listing by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia?
    Chim L; Kelly PJ; Salkeld G; Stockler MR
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2010; 28(6):463-75. PubMed ID: 20465315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Factors Influencing Delays in Patient Access to New Medicines in Canada: A Retrospective Study of Reimbursement Processes in Public Drug Plans.
    Salek S; Lussier Hoskyn S; Johns JR; Allen N; Sehgal C
    Front Pharmacol; 2019; 10():196. PubMed ID: 30983993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Differences in Health Technology Assessment Recommendations Among European Jurisdictions: The Role of Practice Variations.
    Vreman RA; Mantel-Teeuwisse AK; Hövels AM; Leufkens HGM; Goettsch WG
    Value Health; 2020 Jan; 23(1):10-16. PubMed ID: 31952664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Revealed and Stated Preferences of Decision Makers for Priority Setting in Health Technology Assessment: A Systematic Review.
    Ghijben P; Gu Y; Lancsar E; Zavarsek S
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2018 Mar; 36(3):323-340. PubMed ID: 29124632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A systematic review of economic evaluations in second and later lines of therapy for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer.
    Jäkel A; Plested M; Dharamshi K; Modha R; Bridge S; Johns A
    Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2013 Feb; 11(1):27-43. PubMed ID: 23329379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Acceptance of health technology assessment submissions with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios above the cost-effectiveness threshold.
    Griffiths EA; Hendrich JK; Stoddart SD; Walsh SC
    Clinicoecon Outcomes Res; 2015; 7():463-76. PubMed ID: 26366099
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.