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 *

321 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26168804)

  • 1. PAYER PERSPECTIVES ON FUTURE ACCEPTABILITY OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH.
    Moloney R; Mohr P; Hawe E; Shah K; Garau M; Towse A
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2015 Jan; 31(1-2):90-8. PubMed ID: 26168804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. It is important to note that RWD will never replace the more traditional and more robust RCT data; however, the emerging trend is to incorporate data that are more generalizable. Introduction.
    Mullins CD; Sanchez RJ
    J Manag Care Pharm; 2011; 17(9 Suppl A):S03-4. PubMed ID: 22074667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Impact of Postapproval Evidence Generation on the Biopharmaceutical Industry.
    Milne CP; Cohen JP; Felix A; Chakravarthy R
    Clin Ther; 2015 Aug; 37(8):1852-8. PubMed ID: 26143223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A tall order on a tight timeframe: stakeholder perspectives on comparative effectiveness research using electronic clinical data.
    Holve E; Lopez MH; Scott L; Segal C
    J Comp Eff Res; 2012 Sep; 1(5):441-51. PubMed ID: 24236421
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The value and consequences of using public health technology assessments for private payer decision-making in Canada: one size does not fit all.
    Pericleous L; Amin M; Goeree R
    J Med Econ; 2019 May; 22(5):478-487. PubMed ID: 30757934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The ISPOR Good Practices for Quality Improvement of Cost-Effectiveness Research Task Force Report.
    McGhan WF; Al M; Doshi JA; Kamae I; Marx SE; Rindress D
    Value Health; 2009; 12(8):1086-99. PubMed ID: 19744291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. International comparison of comparative effectiveness research in five jurisdictions: insights for the US.
    Levy AR; Mitton C; Johnston KM; Harrigan B; Briggs AH
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2010; 28(10):813-30. PubMed ID: 20831289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Payer Perspectives on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Health Care Decision Making: Oncology Examples.
    Brogan AP; DeMuro C; Barrett AM; D'Alessio D; Bal V; Hogue SL
    J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2017 Feb; 23(2):125-134. PubMed ID: 28125369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Can CER be an effective tool for change in the development and assessment of new drugs and technologies?
    Brixner DI; Watkins JB
    J Manag Care Pharm; 2012 Jun; 18(5 Supp A):S06-11. PubMed ID: 22663293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The methods of comparative effectiveness research.
    Sox HC; Goodman SN
    Annu Rev Public Health; 2012 Apr; 33():425-45. PubMed ID: 22224891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Futurescapes: expectations in Europe for relative effectiveness evidence for drugs in 2020.
    Towse A; Garau M; Mohr P; Messner DA
    J Comp Eff Res; 2015 Aug; 4(4):401-18. PubMed ID: 25740283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. US payer perspectives on evidence for formulary decision making.
    Wang A; Halbert RJ; Baerwaldt T; Nordyke RJ
    Am J Manag Care; 2012 May; 18(5 Spec No. 2):SP71-6. PubMed ID: 22693984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Understanding Payer Perspectives on Value in the Use of Pharmaceuticals in the United States.
    Brogan AP; Hogue SL; Vekaria RM; Reynolds I; Coukell A
    J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2019 Dec; 25(12):1319-1327. PubMed ID: 31778613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Compared to US practice, evidence-based reviews in Europe appear to lead to lower prices for some drugs.
    Cohen J; Malins A; Shahpurwala Z
    Health Aff (Millwood); 2013 Apr; 32(4):762-70. PubMed ID: 23569057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Health technology assessment and comparative effectiveness research: a pharmaceutical industry perspective.
    Hao Y; Thomas A
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2013 Aug; 13(4):447-54. PubMed ID: 23977973
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Looking at CER from Medicare's perspective.
    Mohr P
    J Manag Care Pharm; 2012 May; 18(4 Suppl A):S5-8. PubMed ID: 22578211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The future of comparative effectiveness and relative efficacy of drugs: an international perspective.
    Messner DA; Towse A; Mohr P; Garau M
    J Comp Eff Res; 2015 Aug; 4(4):419-27. PubMed ID: 25730094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparative effectiveness research: decision-based evidence.
    Kowalski CJ; Mrdjenovich AJ
    Perspect Biol Med; 2014; 57(2):224-48. PubMed ID: 25544326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparative effectiveness research: Policy context, methods development and research infrastructure.
    Tunis SR; Benner J; McClellan M
    Stat Med; 2010 Aug; 29(19):1963-76. PubMed ID: 20564311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.