1027 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27028134)
1. Health technology assessment in Australia: a role for clinical registries?
Scott AM
Aust Health Rev; 2017 Mar; 41(1):19-25. PubMed ID: 27028134
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A successful practical application of Coverage with Evidence Development in Australia: Medical Services Advisory Committee interim funding and the PillCam Capsule Endoscopy Register.
O'Malley SP; Selby WS; Jordan E
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2009 Jul; 25(3):290-6. PubMed ID: 19619347
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The impact of orthopaedic research evidence on health financing in Australia.
Hua M; Myers D; Host L
Health Res Policy Syst; 2018 May; 16(1):36. PubMed ID: 29716606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. QUALITY OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT REPORTS PREPARED FOR THE MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
Hua M; Boonstra T; Kelly PJ; Wilson A; Craig JC; Webster AC
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2016 Jan; 32(4):315-323. PubMed ID: 27691988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evidence-based funding of new imaging applications and technologies by Medicare in Australia: How it happens and how it can be improved.
Hill H; Mittal R; Merlin T
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2022 Mar; 66(2):215-224. PubMed ID: 35243777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Horizon scanning of new and emerging medical technology in Australia: its relevance to Medical Services Advisory Committee health technology assessments and public funding.
O'Malley SP; Jordan E
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2009 Jul; 25(3):374-82. PubMed ID: 19619357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Review of a decision by the Medical Services Advisory Committee based on health technology assessment of an emerging technology: the case for remotely assisted radical prostatectomy.
O'Malley SP; Jordan E
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2007; 23(2):286-91. PubMed ID: 17493316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. An evaluation of methods used in health technology assessments produced for the Medical Services Advisory Committee.
Petherick ES; Villanueva EV; Dumville J; Bryan EJ; Dharmage S
Med J Aust; 2007 Sep; 187(5):289-92. PubMed ID: 17767435
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Health technology assessment of medical devices: What is different? An overview of three European projects.
Schnell-Inderst P; Mayer J; Lauterberg J; Hunger T; Arvandi M; Conrads-Frank A; Nachtnebel A; Wild C; Siebert U
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes; 2015; 109(4-5):309-18. PubMed ID: 26354131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Health Technology Assessment in Australia: The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and Medical Services Advisory Committee.
Kim H; Byrnes J; Goodall S;
Value Health Reg Issues; 2021 May; 24():6-11. PubMed ID: 33429153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The representation of public values in health technology assessment to inform funding decisions: the case of Australia's national funding bodies.
Haji Ali Afzali H; Street J; Merlin T; Karnon J
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2021 Jan; 37():e22. PubMed ID: 33455592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Challenges to decision-making processes in the national HTA agency in Brazil: operational procedures, evidence use and recommendations.
Yuba TY; Novaes HMD; de Soárez PC
Health Res Policy Syst; 2018 May; 16(1):40. PubMed ID: 29751764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Power relations and contrasting conceptions of evidence in patient-involvement processes used to inform health funding decisions in Australia.
Lopes E; Carter D; Street J
Soc Sci Med; 2015 Jun; 135():84-91. PubMed ID: 25950114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Introduction and uptake of new medical technologies in the Australian health care system: a qualitative study.
Gallego G; Casey R; Norman R; Goodall S
Health Policy; 2011 Oct; 102(2-3):152-8. PubMed ID: 21601934
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Case Studies: Factors Influencing Divergent HTA Reimbursement Recommendations in Australia, Canada, England, and Scotland.
Allen N; Walker SR; Liberti L; Salek S
Value Health; 2017 Mar; 20(3):320-328. PubMed ID: 28292476
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Health economics and health technology assessment: perspectives from Australia and New Zealand.
Streat S; Munn S
Crit Care Clin; 2012 Jan; 28(1):125-33, vii. PubMed ID: 22123104
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Informing a decision framework for when NICE should recommend the use of health technologies only in the context of an appropriately designed programme of evidence development.
Claxton K; Palmer S; Longworth L; Bojke L; Griffin S; McKenna C; Soares M; Spackman E; Youn J
Health Technol Assess; 2012; 16(46):1-323. PubMed ID: 23177626
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Evidence-based decision-making within Australia's pharmaceutical benefits scheme.
Lopert R
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund); 2009 Jul; 60():1-13. PubMed ID: 19639714
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. South Australian Medicines Evaluation Panel in review: providing evidence-based guidance on the use of high-cost medicines in the South Australian public health system.
Lambert R; Burgess N; Hillock N; Gailer J; Hissaria P; Merlin T; Pearson C; Reddi B; Ward M; Hill C
Aust Health Rev; 2021 Mar; 45(2):207-213. PubMed ID: 33762084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
