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 *

244 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23804506)

  • 1. Evidence synthesis for decision making 1: introduction.
    Dias S; Welton NJ; Sutton AJ; Ades AE
    Med Decis Making; 2013 Jul; 33(5):597-606. PubMed ID: 23804506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Modelling approaches for histology-independent cancer drugs to inform NICE appraisals: a systematic review and decision-framework.
    Murphy P; Glynn D; Dias S; Hodgson R; Claxton L; Beresford L; Cooper K; Tappenden P; Ennis K; Grosso A; Wright K; Cantrell A; Stevenson M; Palmer S
    Health Technol Assess; 2021 Dec; 25(76):1-228. PubMed ID: 34990339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Justice, Transparency and the Guiding Principles of the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
    Charlton V
    Health Care Anal; 2022 Jun; 30(2):115-145. PubMed ID: 34750743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
    Soll RF; Ovelman C; McGuire W
    Early Hum Dev; 2020 Nov; 150():105191. PubMed ID: 33036834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. DECISION-COMPONENTS OF NICE'S TECHNOLOGY APPRAISALS ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK.
    de Folter J; Trusheim M; Jonsson P; Garner S
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2018 Jan; 34(2):163-171. PubMed ID: 29633673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Informing a decision framework for when NICE should recommend the use of health technologies only in the context of an appropriately designed programme of evidence development.
    Claxton K; Palmer S; Longworth L; Bojke L; Griffin S; McKenna C; Soares M; Spackman E; Youn J
    Health Technol Assess; 2012; 16(46):1-323. PubMed ID: 23177626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
    Crider K; Williams J; Qi YP; Gutman J; Yeung L; Mai C; Finkelstain J; Mehta S; Pons-Duran C; Menéndez C; Moraleda C; Rogers L; Daniels K; Green P
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2022 Feb; 2(2022):. PubMed ID: 36321557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Decision making in NICE single technological appraisals: How does NICE incorporate patient perspectives?
    Hashem F; Calnan MW; Brown PR
    Health Expect; 2018 Feb; 21(1):128-137. PubMed ID: 28686809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Evidence synthesis for decision making 7: a reviewer's checklist.
    Ades AE; Caldwell DM; Reken S; Welton NJ; Sutton AJ; Dias S
    Med Decis Making; 2013 Jul; 33(5):679-91. PubMed ID: 23804511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Financial interests of patient organisations contributing to technology assessment at England's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: policy review.
    Mandeville KL; Barker R; Packham A; Sowerby C; Yarrow K; Patrick H
    BMJ; 2019 Jan; 364():k5300. PubMed ID: 30651227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. An exploration of synthesis methods in public health evaluations of interventions concludes that the use of modern statistical methods would be beneficial.
    Achana F; Hubbard S; Sutton A; Kendrick D; Cooper N
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 Apr; 67(4):376-90. PubMed ID: 24388291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.
    Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
    Eur J Health Econ; 2008 Nov; 9 Suppl 1():5-29. PubMed ID: 18987905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Pazopanib for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma : a NICE single technology appraisal.
    Kilonzo M; Hislop J; Elders A; Fraser C; Bissett D; McClinton S; Mowatt G; Vale L
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2013 Jan; 31(1):15-24. PubMed ID: 23329590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany].
    Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
    Dtsch Med Wochenschr; 2008 Dec; 133 Suppl 7():S225-46. PubMed ID: 19034813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. How should cost-effectiveness analysis be used in health technology coverage decisions? Evidence from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence approach.
    Williams I; Bryan S; McIver S
    J Health Serv Res Policy; 2007 Apr; 12(2):73-9. PubMed ID: 17407655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.