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 *

105 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24236745)

  • 1. Identification of topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews in the field of cancer imaging.
    Rao M; Concannon TW; Iovin R; Yu WW; Chan JA; Lypas G; Terasawa T; Gaylor JM; Kong L; Rausch AC; Lau J; Kitsios GD
    J Comp Eff Res; 2013 Sep; 2(5):483-95. PubMed ID: 24236745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Priorities for comparative effectiveness reviews in cardiovascular disease.
    Eapen ZJ; McBroom AJ; Gray R; Musty MD; Hadley C; Hernandez AF; Sanders GD
    Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes; 2013 Mar; 6(2):139-47. PubMed ID: 23481525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. AHRQ series paper 3: identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the effective health-care program.
    Whitlock EP; Lopez SA; Chang S; Helfand M; Eder M; Floyd N
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 May; 63(5):491-501. PubMed ID: 19540721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Prioritizing comparative effectiveness research for cancer diagnostics using a regional stakeholder approach.
    Klein G; Gold LS; Sullivan SD; Buist DS; Ramsey S; Kreizenbeck K; Snell K; Loggers ET; Gifford J; Watkins JB; Kessler L
    J Comp Eff Res; 2012 May; 1(3):241-55. PubMed ID: 23105966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Stakeholder engagement for comparative effectiveness research in cancer care: experience of the DEcIDE Cancer Consortium.
    Greenberg CC; Wind JK; Chang GJ; Chen RC; Schrag D
    J Comp Eff Res; 2013 Mar; 2(2):117-25. PubMed ID: 24236554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. What do providers, payers and patients need from comparative effectiveness research on diagnostics? The case of HER2/Neu testing in breast cancer.
    Trosman JR; Weldon CB; Schink JC; Gradishar WJ; Benson AB
    J Comp Eff Res; 2013 Jul; 2(4):461-77. PubMed ID: 24236686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Prioritization of patient-centered comparative effectiveness research for osteoarthritis.
    Gierisch JM; Myers ER; Schmit KM; McCrory DC; Coeytaux RR; Crowley MJ; Chatterjee R; Kendrick AS; Sanders GD
    Ann Intern Med; 2014 Jun; 160(12):836-41. PubMed ID: 24821227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The refinement of topics for systematic reviews: lessons and recommendations from the Effective Health Care Program.
    Buckley DI; Ansari MT; Butler M; Soh C; Chang CS
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 Apr; 67(4):425-32. PubMed ID: 24581296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Setting priorities for comparative effectiveness research in inflammatory bowel disease: results of an international provider survey, expert RAND panel, and patient focus groups.
    Cheifetz AS; Melmed GY; Spiegel B; Talley J; Devlin SM; Raffals L; Irving PM; Jones J; Kaplan GG; Kozuch P; Sparrow M; Velayos F; Baidoo L; Bressler B; Siegel CA
    Inflamm Bowel Dis; 2012 Dec; 18(12):2294-300. PubMed ID: 22337359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Patient-centered outcomes research in radiology: trends in funding and methodology.
    Lee CI; Jarvik JG
    Acad Radiol; 2014 Sep; 21(9):1156-61. PubMed ID: 24998691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Engaging Stakeholders to Develop a Patient-centered Research Agenda: Lessons Learned From the Research Action for Health Network (REACHnet).
    Haynes SC; Rudov L; Nauman E; Hendryx L; Angove RSM; Carton T
    Med Care; 2018 Oct; 56 Suppl 10 Suppl 1(10 Suppl 1):S27-S32. PubMed ID: 30074948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Overview of best practices in conducting comparative-effectiveness reviews.
    Guise JM; Viswanathan M
    Clin Pharmacol Ther; 2011 Dec; 90(6):876-82. PubMed ID: 22048219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Assessing the impact of systematic reviews on future research: two case studies.
    Viswanathan M; Nerz P; Dalberth B; Voisin C; Lohr KN; Tant E; Jonas DE; Carey T
    J Comp Eff Res; 2012 Jul; 1(4):329-46. PubMed ID: 24237467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [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]  

  • 16. Effective stakeholder participation in setting research priorities using a Global Evidence Mapping approach.
    Clavisi O; Bragge P; Tavender E; Turner T; Gruen RL
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 May; 66(5):496-502.e2. PubMed ID: 22819249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Ensuring relevance for Cochrane reviews: evaluating processes and methods for prioritizing topics for Cochrane reviews.
    Nasser M; Welch V; Tugwell P; Ueffing E; Doyle J; Waters E
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 May; 66(5):474-82. PubMed ID: 22521577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Some methodological points to consider when performing systematic reviews in comparative effectiveness research.
    Berlin JA; Cepeda MS
    Clin Trials; 2012 Feb; 9(1):27-34. PubMed ID: 22049086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.