249 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23977973)
1. Health technology assessment and comparative effectiveness research: a pharmaceutical industry perspective.
Hao Y; Thomas A
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2013 Aug; 13(4):447-54. PubMed ID: 23977973
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Policies for Use of Real-World Data in Health Technology Assessment (HTA): A Comparative Study of Six HTA Agencies.
Makady A; Ham RT; de Boer A; Hillege H; Klungel O; Goettsch W;
Value Health; 2017 Apr; 20(4):520-532. PubMed ID: 28407993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Values and evidence colliding: health technology assessment in child health.
Ungar WJ; Prosser LA; Burnett HF
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2013 Aug; 13(4):417-9. PubMed ID: 23977967
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparative effectiveness research: the view from a pharmaceutical company.
Berger ML; Grainger D
Pharmacoeconomics; 2010; 28(10):915-22. PubMed ID: 20831299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Use of comparative effectiveness research in drug coverage and pricing decisions: a six-country comparison.
Sorenson C
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund); 2010 Jul; 91():1-14. PubMed ID: 20614655
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Historical development of health technology assessment in Thailand.
Teerawattananon Y; Tantivess S; Yothasamut J; Kingkaew P; Chaisiri K
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2009 Jul; 25 Suppl 1():241-52. PubMed ID: 19527543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Facts, fallacies, and politics of comparative effectiveness research: Part I. Basic considerations.
Manchikanti L; Falco FJ; Boswell MV; Hirsch JA
Pain Physician; 2010; 13(1):E23-54. PubMed ID: 20119474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Health technology assessment.
Papatheofanis FJ
Q J Nucl Med; 2000 Jun; 44(2):105-11. PubMed ID: 10967621
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Health technology assessment: research trends and future priorities in Europe.
Nielsen CP; Funch TM; Kristensen FB
J Health Serv Res Policy; 2011 Jul; 16 Suppl 2():6-15. PubMed ID: 21737525
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The politics of comparative effectiveness research: lessons from recent history.
Sorenson C; Gusmano MK; Oliver A
J Health Polit Policy Law; 2014 Feb; 39(1):139-70. PubMed ID: 24193612
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Defining the scope of health technology assessment and types of health economic evaluation.
Tanvejsilp P; Ngorsuraches S
J Med Assoc Thai; 2014 May; 97 Suppl 5():S10-6. PubMed ID: 24964694
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A Health Economics Approach to US Value Assessment Frameworks-Summary and Recommendations of the ISPOR Special Task Force Report [7].
Garrison LP; Neumann PJ; Willke RJ; Basu A; Danzon PM; Doshi JA; Drummond MF; Lakdawalla DN; Pauly MV; Phelps CE; Ramsey SD; Towse A; Weinstein MC
Value Health; 2018 Feb; 21(2):161-165. PubMed ID: 29477394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Early assessment of medical technologies to inform product development and market access: a review of methods and applications.
Ijzerman MJ; Steuten LM
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2011 Sep; 9(5):331-47. PubMed ID: 21875163
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparative effectiveness research in the United States: a progress report.
Sullivan SD; Carlson JJ; Hansen RN
J Med Econ; 2013; 16(2):295-7. PubMed ID: 23227997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions.
Drummond MF; Schwartz JS; Jönsson B; Luce BR; Neumann PJ; Siebert U; Sullivan SD
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2008; 24(3):244-58; discussion 362-8. PubMed ID: 18601792
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
