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 *

389 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24025661)

  • 1. Valuing SF-6D Health States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.
    Norman R; Viney R; Brazier J; Burgess L; Cronin P; King M; Ratcliffe J; Street D
    Med Decis Making; 2014 Aug; 34(6):773-86. PubMed ID: 24025661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. An Australian discrete choice experiment to value eq-5d health states.
    Viney R; Norman R; Brazier J; Cronin P; King MT; Ratcliffe J; Street D
    Health Econ; 2014 Jun; 23(6):729-42. PubMed ID: 23765787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states.
    Norman R; Cronin P; Viney R
    Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2013 Jun; 11(3):287-98. PubMed ID: 23649892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D responses using scoring algorithms derived from similar valuation exercises.
    Whitehurst DG; Norman R; Brazier JE; Viney R
    Value Health; 2014 Jul; 17(5):570-7. PubMed ID: 25128050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A framework for estimating health state utility values within a discrete choice experiment: modeling risky choices.
    Robinson A; Spencer A; Moffatt P
    Med Decis Making; 2015 Apr; 35(3):341-50. PubMed ID: 25349189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Valuing the AD-5D Dementia Utility Instrument: An Estimation of a General Population Tariff.
    Comans TA; Nguyen KH; Ratcliffe J; Rowen D; Mulhern B
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2020 Aug; 38(8):871-881. PubMed ID: 32314315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Australian Utility Weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument Derived from the Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30.
    King MT; Viney R; Simon Pickard A; Rowen D; Aaronson NK; Brazier JE; Cella D; Costa DSJ; Fayers PM; Kemmler G; McTaggart-Cowen H; Mercieca-Bebber R; Peacock S; Street DJ; Young TA; Norman R;
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2018 Feb; 36(2):225-238. PubMed ID: 29270835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A Portuguese value set for the SF-6D.
    Ferreira LN; Ferreira PL; Pereira LN; Brazier J; Rowen D
    Value Health; 2010 Aug; 13(5):624-30. PubMed ID: 20230545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Valuing the SF-6Dv2 Classification System in the United Kingdom Using a Discrete-choice Experiment With Duration.
    Mulhern BJ; Bansback N; Norman R; Brazier J;
    Med Care; 2020 Jun; 58(6):566-573. PubMed ID: 32221100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Unchained melody: revisiting the estimation of SF-6D values.
    Craig BM
    Eur J Health Econ; 2016 Sep; 17(7):865-73. PubMed ID: 26359242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Estimating the SF-6D value set for a population-based sample of Brazilians.
    Cruz LN; Camey SA; Hoffmann JF; Rowen D; Brazier JE; Fleck MP; Polanczyk CA
    Value Health; 2011; 14(5 Suppl 1):S108-14. PubMed ID: 21839880
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. U.K. utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D.
    Norman R; Mercieca-Bebber R; Rowen D; Brazier JE; Cella D; Pickard AS; Street DJ; Viney R; Revicki D; King MT;
    Health Econ; 2019 Dec; 28(12):1385-1401. PubMed ID: 31482619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Valuing Child Health Utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample: a feasibility study to compare best-worst scaling discrete-choice experiment, standard gamble and time trade-off methods.
    Ratcliffe J; Couzner L; Flynn T; Sawyer M; Stevens K; Brazier J; Burgess L
    Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2011; 9(1):15-27. PubMed ID: 21033766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Using the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale to estimate health state utility values: mapping from the MSIS-29, version 2, to the EQ-5D and the SF-6D.
    Hawton A; Green C; Telford C; Zajicek J; Wright D
    Value Health; 2012 Dec; 15(8):1084-91. PubMed ID: 23244811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Australian Public Preferences for the Funding of New Health Technologies: A Comparison of Discrete Choice and Profile Case Best-Worst Scaling Methods.
    Whitty JA; Ratcliffe J; Chen G; Scuffham PA
    Med Decis Making; 2014 Jul; 34(5):638-54. PubMed ID: 24713695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Quality-adjusted life-years lack quality in pediatric care: a critical review of published cost-utility studies in child health.
    Griebsch I; Coast J; Brown J
    Pediatrics; 2005 May; 115(5):e600-14. PubMed ID: 15867026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Order of Presentation of Dimensions Does Not Systematically Bias Utility Weights from a Discrete Choice Experiment.
    Norman R; Kemmler G; Viney R; Pickard AS; Gamper E; Holzner B; Nerich V; King M
    Value Health; 2016 Dec; 19(8):1033-1038. PubMed ID: 27987630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Investigating the relative value of health and social care related quality of life using a discrete choice experiment.
    Mulhern B; Norman R; De Abreu Lourenco R; Malley J; Street D; Viney R
    Soc Sci Med; 2019 Jul; 233():28-37. PubMed ID: 31153085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Australian health-related quality of life population norms derived from the SF-6D.
    Norman R; Church J; van den Berg B; Goodall S
    Aust N Z J Public Health; 2013 Feb; 37(1):17-23. PubMed ID: 23379801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Do Portuguese and UK health state values differ across valuation methods?
    Ferreira LN; Ferreira PL; Rowen D; Brazier JE
    Qual Life Res; 2011 May; 20(4):609-19. PubMed ID: 21061071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 20.