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: 23519880)

  • 21. Health technology assessment in the United Kingdom.
    Drummond M; Banta D
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2009 Jul; 25 Suppl 1():178-81. PubMed ID: 19527538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The Evolving Nature of Health Technology Assessment: A Critical Appraisal of NICE's New Methods Manual.
    Angelis A; Harker M; Cairns J; Seo MK; Legood R; Miners A; Wiseman V; Chalkidou K; Grieve R; Briggs A
    Value Health; 2023 Oct; 26(10):1503-1509. PubMed ID: 37268059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Health technology assessment in England and Wales.
    Stevens A; Milne R
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2004; 20(1):11-24. PubMed ID: 15176173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Modifying NICE's Approach to Equity Weighting.
    Paulden M; McCabe C
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2021 Feb; 39(2):147-160. PubMed ID: 33517512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. After 20 Years of Using Economic Evaluation, Should NICE be Considered a Methods Innovator?
    Sculpher M; Palmer S
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2020 Mar; 38(3):247-257. PubMed ID: 31930460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The normative grounds for NICE decision-making: a narrative cross-disciplinary review of empirical studies.
    Charlton V
    Health Econ Policy Law; 2022 Oct; 17(4):444-470. PubMed ID: 35293306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Assessment of quality of data submitted for NICE technology appraisals over two decades.
    Osipenko L; Ul-Hasan SA; Winberg D; Prudyus K; Kousta M; Rizoglou A; Rustignoli I; van der Maas L
    BMJ Open; 2024 Feb; 14(2):e074341. PubMed ID: 38351112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Similarities and differences between stakeholders' opinions on using Health Technology Assessment (HTA) information across five European countries: results from the EQUIPT survey.
    Vokó Z; Cheung KL; Józwiak-Hagymásy J; Wolfenstetter S; Jones T; Muñoz C; Evers SM; Hiligsmann M; de Vries H; Pokhrel S;
    Health Res Policy Syst; 2016 May; 14(1):38. PubMed ID: 27230485
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Views of Directors of Public Health about NICE Appraisal Guidance: results of a postal survey. National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
    Davies E; Littlejohns P
    J Public Health Med; 2002 Dec; 24(4):319-25. PubMed ID: 12546211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Clinical Guidelines: A NICE Way to Introduce Cost-Effectiveness Considerations?
    Drummond M
    Value Health; 2016; 19(5):525-30. PubMed ID: 27565268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: qualitative study and methodological review.
    Chilcott J; Tappenden P; Rawdin A; Johnson M; Kaltenthaler E; Paisley S; Papaioannou D; Shippam A
    Health Technol Assess; 2010 May; 14(25):iii-iv, ix-xii, 1-107. PubMed ID: 20501062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The Type and Impact of Evidence Review Group Exploratory Analyses in the NICE Single Technology Appraisal Process.
    Carroll C; Kaltenthaler E; Hill-McManus D; Scope A; Holmes M; Rice S; Rose M; Tappenden P; Woolacott N
    Value Health; 2017 Jun; 20(6):785-791. PubMed ID: 28577696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The use of exploratory analyses within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence single technology appraisal process: an evaluation and qualitative analysis.
    Kaltenthaler E; Carroll C; Hill-McManus D; Scope A; Holmes M; Rice S; Rose M; Tappenden P; Woolacott N
    Health Technol Assess; 2016 Apr; 20(26):1-48. PubMed ID: 27049841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE): Is economic appraisal working?
    Towse A; Pritchard C
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2002; 20 Suppl 3():95-105. PubMed ID: 12457430
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Seeing the NICE side of cost-effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals.
    Bryan S; Williams I; McIver S
    Health Econ; 2007 Feb; 16(2):179-93. PubMed ID: 16960851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Comparative effectiveness review within the U.K.'s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
    Chalkidou K
    Issue Brief (Commonw Fund); 2009 Jul; 59():1-12. PubMed ID: 19639713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Piloting the development of a cost-effective evidence-informed clinical pathway: managing hypertension in Jordanian primary care.
    Chalkidou K; Lord J; Obeidat NA; Alabbadi IA; Stanley AG; Bader R; Momani A; O'Mahony RM; Qatami L; Cutler D
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2011 Apr; 27(2):151-8. PubMed ID: 21473813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. An analysis of NICE's 'restricted' (or 'optimized') decisions.
    O'Neill P; Devlin NJ
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2010; 28(11):987-93. PubMed ID: 20936882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The Health Technology Assessment of companion diagnostics: experience of NICE.
    Byron SK; Crabb N; George E; Marlow M; Newland A
    Clin Cancer Res; 2014 Mar; 20(6):1469-76. PubMed ID: 24634470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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