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 *

79 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25989993)

  • 1. NICE recommendations: why no disinvestment recommendations to offset investment decisions?
    Hughes DA; Wood EM; Tuersley L
    BMJ; 2015 May; 350():h2656. PubMed ID: 25989993
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Informing disinvestment through cost-effectiveness modelling: is lack of data a surmountable barrier?
    Karnon J; Carlton J; Czoski-Murray C; Smith K
    Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2009; 7(1):1-9. PubMed ID: 19558190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Breaking up is hard to do: why disinvestment in medical technology is harder than investment.
    Haas M; Hall J; Viney R; Gallego G
    Aust Health Rev; 2012 May; 36(2):148-52. PubMed ID: 22624634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Patients' views of explicit rationing: what are the implications for health service decision-making?
    Devlin N; Appleby J; Parkin D
    J Health Serv Res Policy; 2003 Jul; 8(3):183-6. PubMed ID: 12869346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evidence Review Group approaches to the critical appraisal of manufacturer submissions for the NICE STA process: a mapping study and thematic analysis.
    Kaltenthaler E; Boland A; Carroll C; Dickson R; Fitzgerald P; Papaioannou D
    Health Technol Assess; 2011 May; 15(22):1-82, iii-iv. PubMed ID: 21561569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Involving stakeholders in healthcare decisions--the experience of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales.
    Culyer AJ
    Healthc Q; 2005; 8(3):56-60. PubMed ID: 16078403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Reallocating resources: how should the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guide disinvestment efforts in the National Health Service?
    Pearson S; Littlejohns P
    J Health Serv Res Policy; 2007 Jul; 12(3):160-5. PubMed ID: 17716419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Decision making by NICE: examining the influences of evidence, process and context.
    Cerri KH; Knapp M; Fernández JL
    Health Econ Policy Law; 2014 Apr; 9(2):119-41. PubMed ID: 23688554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Cost effective but unaffordable: an emerging challenge for health systems.
    Charlton V; Littlejohns P; Kieslich K; Mitchell P; Rumbold B; Weale A; Wilson J; Rid A
    BMJ; 2017 Mar; 356():j1402. PubMed ID: 28330879
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and its role in assessing the value of new cancer treatments in England and Wales.
    Trowman R; Chung H; Longson C; Littlejohns P; Clark P
    Clin Cancer Res; 2011 Aug; 17(15):4930-5. PubMed ID: 21791636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Cost-effectiveness analysis and formulary decision making in England: findings from research.
    Williams IP; Bryan S
    Soc Sci Med; 2007 Nov; 65(10):2116-29. PubMed ID: 17698271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. NICE's use of cost effectiveness as an exemplar of a deliberative process.
    Culyer AJ
    Health Econ Policy Law; 2006 Jul; 1(Pt 3):299-318. PubMed ID: 18634698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. When is it too expensive? Cost-effectiveness thresholds and health care decision-making.
    Brouwer W; van Baal P; van Exel J; Versteegh M
    Eur J Health Econ; 2019 Mar; 20(2):175-180. PubMed ID: 30187251
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Medical technologies can carry big payoff, big costs. How to assess needs and build strategies.
    Carpenter D
    Trustee; 2008; 61(7):8-12, 14, 19 passim. PubMed ID: 18773556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Irrelevance of explicit cost-effectiveness thresholds when coverage decisions can be reversed.
    Basu A
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2013 Apr; 13(2):163-5. PubMed ID: 23570425
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Use of programme budgeting and marginal analysis as a framework for resource reallocation in respiratory care in North Wales, UK.
    Charles JM; Brown G; Thomas K; Johnstone F; Vandenblink V; Pethers B; Jones A; Edwards RT
    J Public Health (Oxf); 2016 Sep; 38(3):e352-e361. PubMed ID: 26377991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Making the cut. High price tags for state-of-the art surgical equipment have hospitals weighing when or even whether to invest.
    Gardner E
    Mod Healthc; 2006 Feb; 36(7):50-2, 54, 56. PubMed ID: 16515075
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Criteria and procedures for determining benefit packages in health care. A comparative perspective.
    Gress S; Niebuhr D; Rothgang H; Wasem J
    Health Policy; 2005 Jul; 73(1):78-91. PubMed ID: 15911059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. New methods of analysing cost effectiveness.
    Briggs AH
    BMJ; 2007 Sep; 335(7621):622-3. PubMed ID: 17872931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.