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 *

303 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26729947)

  • 1. Investigation of comparative effectiveness research in Asia, Europe, and North America.
    Patel I; Rarus R; Tan X; Lee EK; Guy J; Ahmad A; Chang J
    Indian J Pharmacol; 2015; 47(6):585-93. PubMed ID: 26729947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. The impact of comparative effectiveness research on interventional pain management: evolution from Medicare Modernization Act to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
    Manchikanti L; Falco FJ; Benyamin RM; Helm S; Parr AT; Hirsch JA
    Pain Physician; 2011; 14(3):E249-82. PubMed ID: 21587337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Facts, fallacies, and politics of comparative effectiveness research: Part I. Basic considerations.
    Manchikanti L; Falco FJ; Boswell MV; Hirsch JA
    Pain Physician; 2010; 13(1):E23-54. PubMed ID: 20119474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The (possible) impact of comparative effectiveness research on pharmaceutical industry decision making.
    Chalkidou K
    Clin Pharmacol Ther; 2010 Mar; 87(3):264-6. PubMed ID: 20160745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Facts, fallacies, and politics of comparative effectiveness research: Part 2 - implications for interventional pain management.
    Manchikanti L; Falco FJ; Boswell MV; Hirsch JA
    Pain Physician; 2010; 13(1):E55-79. PubMed ID: 20119475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Translating comparative effectiveness research into Medicaid payment policy: views from medical and pharmacy directors.
    Weissman JS; Westrich K; Hargraves JL; Pearson SD; Dubois R; Emond S; Olufajo OA
    J Comp Eff Res; 2015 Mar; 4(2):79-88. PubMed ID: 25825839
    [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. 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]  

  • 11. The case for a comparative, value-based alternative to the patient-centered outcomes research model for comparative effectiveness research.
    Marko NF; Weil RJ
    Neurosurg Focus; 2012 Jul; 33(1):E8. PubMed ID: 22746240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The implications of comparative effectiveness research for academic medicine.
    Rich EC; Bonham AC; Kirch DG
    Acad Med; 2011 Jun; 86(6):684-8. PubMed ID: 21512362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Use of comparative effectiveness research in drug coverage and pricing decisions: a six-country comparison.
    Sorenson C
    Issue Brief (Commonw Fund); 2010 Jul; 91():1-14. PubMed ID: 20614655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Implementing CER: what will it take?
    Biskupiak JE; Dunn JD; Holtorf AP
    J Manag Care Pharm; 2012 Jun; 18(5 Supp A):S19-29. PubMed ID: 22663296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Comparative effectiveness research in the United States: a progress report.
    Sullivan SD; Carlson JJ; Hansen RN
    J Med Econ; 2013; 16(2):295-7. PubMed ID: 23227997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. The past, present, and future of comparative effectiveness research in the US Department of Veterans Affairs.
    Kupersmith J; Ommaya AK
    Am J Med; 2010 Dec; 123(12 Suppl 1):e3-7. PubMed ID: 21184864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Perspective and desire in comparative effectiveness research: the relative unimportance of mere preferences, the central importance of context.
    Culyer AJ
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2010; 28(10):889-97. PubMed ID: 20831296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Using observational studies for comparative effectiveness: finding quality with GRACE.
    Dreyer NA
    J Comp Eff Res; 2013 Sep; 2(5):413-8. PubMed ID: 24236736
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.