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 *

89 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23771882)

  • 1. Link between process and appraisal in coverage decisions: an analysis with structural equation modeling.
    Fischer KE; Stollenwerk B; Rogowski WH
    Med Decis Making; 2013 Nov; 33(8):1009-25. PubMed ID: 23771882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Decision-making in healthcare: a practical application of partial least square path modelling to coverage of newborn screening programmes.
    Fischer KE
    BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2012 Aug; 12():83. PubMed ID: 22856325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Transparency vs. closed-door policy: do process characteristics have an impact on the outcomes of coverage decisions? A statistical analysis.
    Fischer KE; Rogowski WH; Leidl R; Stollenwerk B
    Health Policy; 2013 Oct; 112(3):187-96. PubMed ID: 23664301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Moving Towards Accountability for Reasonableness - A Systematic Exploration of the Features of Legitimate Healthcare Coverage Decision-Making Processes Using Rare Diseases and Regenerative Therapies as a Case Study.
    Wagner M; Samaha D; Casciano R; Brougham M; Abrishami P; Petrie C; Avouac B; Mantovani L; Sarría-Santamera A; Kind P; Schlander M; Tringali M
    Int J Health Policy Manag; 2019 Jul; 8(7):424-443. PubMed ID: 31441279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Priority setting and cardiac surgery: a qualitative case study.
    Walton NA; Martin DK; Peter EH; Pringle DM; Singer PA
    Health Policy; 2007 Mar; 80(3):444-58. PubMed ID: 16757057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Justice and procedure: how does "accountability for reasonableness" result in fair limit-setting decisions?
    Rid A
    J Med Ethics; 2009 Jan; 35(1):12-6. PubMed ID: 19103936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The role of health technology assessment in coverage decisions on newborn screening.
    Fischer KE; Grosse SD; Rogowski WH
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2011 Oct; 27(4):313-21. PubMed ID: 22004771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. European drug reimbursement systems' legitimacy: five-country comparison and policy tool.
    Cleemput I; Franken M; Koopmanschap M; le Polain M
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2012 Oct; 28(4):358-66. PubMed ID: 22980497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Fairness and accountability for reasonableness. Do the views of priority setting decision makers differ across health systems and levels of decision making?
    Kapiriri L; Norheim OF; Martin DK
    Soc Sci Med; 2009 Feb; 68(4):766-73. PubMed ID: 19070414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Towards Integrated Health Technology Assessment for Improving Decision Making in Selected Countries.
    Oortwijn W; Determann D; Schiffers K; Tan SS; van der Tuin J
    Value Health; 2017 Sep; 20(8):1121-1130. PubMed ID: 28964444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Health technology appraisal and the courts: accountability for reasonableness and the judicial model of procedural justice.
    Syrett K
    Health Econ Policy Law; 2011 Oct; 6(4):469-88. PubMed ID: 20701830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Does accountability for reasonableness work? A protocol for a mixed methods study using an audit tool to evaluate the decision-making of clinical commissioning groups in England.
    Kieslich K; Littlejohns P
    BMJ Open; 2015 Jul; 5(7):e007908. PubMed ID: 26163034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The use of cost-effectiveness by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): no(t yet an) exemplar of a deliberative process.
    Schlander M
    J Med Ethics; 2008 Jul; 34(7):534-9. PubMed ID: 18591289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Making the right decisions about new technologies: a perspective on criteria and preferences in hospitals.
    Gurtner S
    Health Care Manage Rev; 2014; 39(3):245-54. PubMed ID: 23727787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Accounting for reasonableness: Exploring the personal internal framework affecting decisions about cancer drug funding.
    Sinclair S; Hagen NA; Chambers C; Manns B; Simon A; Browman GP
    Health Policy; 2008 May; 86(2-3):381-90. PubMed ID: 18243395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluation: an audit of NICE current practice and a review of its use and value in decision-making.
    Andronis L; Barton P; Bryan S
    Health Technol Assess; 2009 Jun; 13(29):iii, ix-xi, 1-61. PubMed ID: 19500484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.