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 *

320 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25349189)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. A comparison of methods for converting DCE values onto the full health-dead QALY scale.
    Rowen D; Brazier J; Van Hout B
    Med Decis Making; 2015 Apr; 35(3):328-40. PubMed ID: 25398621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values.
    Bansback N; Brazier J; Tsuchiya A; Anis A
    J Health Econ; 2012 Jan; 31(1):306-18. PubMed ID: 22197308
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Exploring Differences between TTO and DCE in the Valuation of Health States.
    Robinson A; Spencer AE; Pinto-Prades JL; Covey JA
    Med Decis Making; 2017 Apr; 37(3):273-284. PubMed ID: 27646566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Estimating health state utility values from discrete choice experiments--a QALY space model approach.
    Gu Y; Norman R; Viney R
    Health Econ; 2014 Sep; 23(9):1098-114. PubMed ID: 24943827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Advocating a Paradigm Shift in Health-State Valuations: The Estimation of Time-Preference Corrected QALY Tariffs.
    Jonker MF; Donkers B; de Bekker-Grob EW; Stolk EA
    Value Health; 2018 Aug; 21(8):993-1001. PubMed ID: 30098678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The Impact of Different DCE-Based Approaches When Anchoring Utility Scores.
    Norman R; Mulhern B; Viney R
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2016 Aug; 34(8):805-14. PubMed ID: 27034244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. How Should Discrete Choice Experiments with Duration Choice Sets Be Presented for the Valuation of Health States?
    Mulhern B; Norman R; Shah K; Bansback N; Longworth L; Viney R
    Med Decis Making; 2018 Apr; 38(3):306-318. PubMed ID: 29084472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Severity-Stratified Discrete Choice Experiment Designs for Health State Evaluations.
    Lim S; Jonker MF; Oppe M; Donkers B; Stolk E
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2018 Nov; 36(11):1377-1389. PubMed ID: 30030818
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of Value Set Based on DCE and/or TTO Data: Scoring for EQ-5D-5L Health States in Japan.
    Shiroiwa T; Ikeda S; Noto S; Igarashi A; Fukuda T; Saito S; Shimozuma K
    Value Health; 2016; 19(5):648-54. PubMed ID: 27565282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Explaining distortions in utility elicitation through the rank-dependent model for risky choices.
    Wakker P; Stiggelbout A
    Med Decis Making; 1995; 15(2):180-6. PubMed ID: 7783579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Recombinant erythropoietin for chemotherapy-related anaemia: economic value and health-related quality-of-life assessment using direct utility elicitation and discrete choice experiment methods.
    Ossa DF; Briggs A; McIntosh E; Cowell W; Littlewood T; Sculpher M
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2007; 25(3):223-37. PubMed ID: 17335308
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Derivation of a UK preference-based value set for the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) to allow estimation of Mental Well-being Adjusted Life Years (MWALYs).
    Yiu HHE; Buckell J; Petrou S; Stewart-Brown S; Madan J
    Soc Sci Med; 2023 Jun; 327():115928. PubMed ID: 37201343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Discrete choice modeling for the quantification of health states: the case of the EQ-5D.
    Stolk EA; Oppe M; Scalone L; Krabbe PF
    Value Health; 2010 Dec; 13(8):1005-13. PubMed ID: 20825618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.