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: 26305841)

  • 1. Alternative approaches for assessing the socioeconomic benefits of medical devices: a systematic review.
    Wilkinson G; Drummond M
    Expert Rev Med Devices; 2015; 12(5):629-48. PubMed ID: 26305841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [Assessment of benefit and efficiency of innovative medical devices].
    Perleth M; Lühmann D
    Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz; 2010 Aug; 53(8):825-30. PubMed ID: 20700782
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Australian Public Preferences for the Funding of New Health Technologies: A Comparison of Discrete Choice and Profile Case Best-Worst Scaling Methods.
    Whitty JA; Ratcliffe J; Chen G; Scuffham PA
    Med Decis Making; 2014 Jul; 34(5):638-54. PubMed ID: 24713695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Eliciting preferences for medical devices in South Korea: A discrete choice experiment.
    Lee HJ; Bae EY
    Health Policy; 2017 Mar; 121(3):243-249. PubMed ID: 28117075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Probability elicitation to inform early health economic evaluations of new medical technologies: a case study in heart failure disease management.
    Cao Q; Postmus D; Hillege HL; Buskens E
    Value Health; 2013 Jun; 16(4):529-35. PubMed ID: 23796286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Preference-based approaches to measuring the benefits of perinatal care.
    Petrou S; Henderson J
    Birth; 2003 Dec; 30(4):217-26. PubMed ID: 14992152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. EXPLORATION AND PREFERENTIAL RANKING OF PATIENT BENEFITS OF MEDICAL DEVICES: A NEW AND GENERIC INSTRUMENT FOR HEALTH ECONOMIC ASSESSMENTS.
    Lesén E; Björholt I; Ingelgård A; Olson FJ
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2017 Jan; 33(4):463-471. PubMed ID: 29065937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review.
    Trapero-Bertran M; Rodríguez-Martín B; López-Bastida J
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(7):e0219905. PubMed ID: 31318926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Investor drought and regulatory headwinds slow device innovation.
    Russell S
    Health Aff (Millwood); 2015 Feb; 34(2):199-202. PubMed ID: 25646098
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. The Italian industry: meeting today's challenges.
    Galavotti P
    Med Device Technol; 2008; 19(3):52-3. PubMed ID: 18557411
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Sending in-house HTMs to school for high-end equipment-is it worth it?
    Lynch PK
    Biomed Instrum Technol; 2014; 48(6):470-1. PubMed ID: 25408988
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The Willingness to Pay for a Quality Adjusted Life Year: A Review of the Empirical Literature.
    Ryen L; Svensson M
    Health Econ; 2015 Oct; 24(10):1289-1301. PubMed ID: 25070495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The economic evaluation of medical devices: challenges.
    Kingkaew P; Teerawattananon Y
    J Med Assoc Thai; 2014 May; 97 Suppl 5():S102-7. PubMed ID: 24964706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Quantifying benefit-risk preferences for medical interventions: an overview of a growing empirical literature.
    Brett Hauber A; Fairchild AO; Reed Johnson F
    Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2013 Aug; 11(4):319-29. PubMed ID: 23637054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Biomedical innovation in the era of health care spending constraints.
    Robinson JC
    Health Aff (Millwood); 2015 Feb; 34(2):203-9. PubMed ID: 25646099
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Eliciting stated preferences for health-technology adoption criteria using paired comparisons and recommendation judgments.
    Johnson FR; Backhouse M
    Value Health; 2006; 9(5):303-11. PubMed ID: 16961548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Endogenous Technology Adoption and Medical Costs.
    Lamiraud K; Lhuillery S
    Health Econ; 2016 Sep; 25(9):1123-47. PubMed ID: 27492052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. How to value technological innovation: a proposal for determining relative clinical value.
    Ladabaum U; Brill JV; Sonnenberg A; Shaheen NJ; Inadomi J; Wilcox CM; Park WG; Hur C; Pasricha PJ
    Gastroenterology; 2013 Jan; 144(1):5-8. PubMed ID: 23153872
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Experiences of new product development in the medical device industry.
    Dixon D; Brown A; Meenan BJ; Eatock J
    Med Device Technol; 2006 Apr; 17(3):20-2. PubMed ID: 16736659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.