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 *

90 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25565066)

  • 1. Patient and clinician views on comparative effectiveness research and engagement in research.
    Forsythe LP; Frank L; Walker KO; Anise A; Wegener N; Weisman H; Hunt G; Beal A
    J Comp Eff Res; 2015 Jan; 4(1):11-25. PubMed ID: 25565066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Patient, caregiver and clinician views on engagement in comparative effectiveness research.
    Forsythe LP; Frank LB; Workman TA; Hilliard T; Harwell D; Fayish L
    J Comp Eff Res; 2017 May; 6(3):231-244. PubMed ID: 28173732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Attitudes toward comparative effectiveness research and patient engagement among reproductive health clinicians.
    Kohn J; Unger Z; Dolatshahi J; Simons H; Rein A
    J Comp Eff Res; 2017 Jun; 6(4):337-345. PubMed ID: 28621553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Patient, caregiver and clinician use of comparative effectiveness research findings in care decisions: results from a national study.
    Frank LB; Forsythe LP; Workman TA; Hilliard T; Lavelle M; Harwell D; Fayish L
    J Comp Eff Res; 2017 May; 6(3):219-229. PubMed ID: 28173724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Health researcher views on comparative effectiveness research and research engagement.
    Forsythe LP; Frank LB; Workman TA; Borsky A; Hilliard T; Harwell D; Fayish L
    J Comp Eff Res; 2017 May; 6(3):245-256. PubMed ID: 28173710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Increasing uptake of comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research among stakeholders: insights from conference discussion.
    Law E; Harrington R; Alexander GC; Saha S; Oehrlein E; Perfetto EM
    J Comp Eff Res; 2018 Feb; 7(2):181-191. PubMed ID: 29465252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Patients and clinicians as stakeholders in comparative effectiveness research: multiple perspectives and evolving roles.
    Williams SS; Esposito D; Rich EC
    J Comp Eff Res; 2014 Nov; 3(6):573-5. PubMed ID: 25494562
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Physician attitudes toward regionalization of adult critical care: a national survey.
    Kahn JM; Asch RJ; Iwashyna TJ; Haynes K; Rubenfeld GD; Angus DC; Asch DA
    Crit Care Med; 2009 Jul; 37(7):2149-54. PubMed ID: 19455025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Expectations of patients and physicians regarding patient-accessible medical records.
    Ross SE; Todd J; Moore LA; Beaty BL; Wittevrongel L; Lin CT
    J Med Internet Res; 2005 May; 7(2):e13. PubMed ID: 15914460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Barriers to patient-clinician collaboration in asthma management: the patient experience.
    Newcomb PA; McGrath KW; Covington JK; Lazarus SC; Janson SL
    J Asthma; 2010 Mar; 47(2):192-7. PubMed ID: 20170328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Practical guide to understanding Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER).
    Neely JG; Sharon JD; Graboyes EM; Paniello RC; Nussenbaum B; Grindler DJ; Dassopoulos T;
    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2013 Dec; 149(6):804-12. PubMed ID: 24098005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Translating comparative effectiveness into practice: the case of diabetes medications.
    Shah ND; Mullan RJ; Breslin M; Yawn BP; Ting HH; Montori VM
    Med Care; 2010 Jun; 48(6 Suppl):S153-8. PubMed ID: 20473211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: implications for clinical practice and health care policy.
    Ahmed S; Berzon RA; Revicki DA; Lenderking WR; Moinpour CM; Basch E; Reeve BB; Wu AW;
    Med Care; 2012 Dec; 50(12):1060-70. PubMed ID: 22922434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Attitudes of Colorado health professionals toward breast and cervical cancer screening in Hispanic women.
    Bakemeier RF; Krebs LU; Murphy JR; Shen Z; Ryals T
    J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 1995; (18):95-100. PubMed ID: 8562228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Approaches to comparative effectiveness research in multimorbid populations.
    Maciejewski ML; Bayliss EA
    Med Care; 2014 Mar; 52 Suppl 3():S23-30. PubMed ID: 24561754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. VisualDecisionLinc: a visual analytics approach for comparative effectiveness-based clinical decision support in psychiatry.
    Mane KK; Bizon C; Schmitt C; Owen P; Burchett B; Pietrobon R; Gersing K
    J Biomed Inform; 2012 Feb; 45(1):101-6. PubMed ID: 21963813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Practice-based research networks: the view from the office.
    Niebauer L; Nutting PA
    J Fam Pract; 1994 Apr; 38(4):409-14. PubMed ID: 8163967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparative effectiveness and practice variation in neonatal care.
    Lagatta J; Uhing M; Panepinto J
    Clin Perinatol; 2014 Dec; 41(4):833-45. PubMed ID: 25459777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Defining comparative effectiveness research: the importance of getting it right.
    Sox HC
    Med Care; 2010 Jun; 48(6 Suppl):S7-8. PubMed ID: 20473202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.