199 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27480537)
1. Review of Economic Submissions to NICE Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme.
Alshreef A; Jenks M; Green W; Dixon S
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2016 Dec; 14(6):623-634. PubMed ID: 27480537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Parafricta Bootees and Undergarments to Reduce Skin Breakdown in People with or at Risk of Pressure Ulcers: A NICE Medical Technologies Guidance.
Meads C; Glover M; Dimmock P; Pokhrel S
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2016 Dec; 14(6):635-646. PubMed ID: 27116358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Utility values in National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Technology Appraisals.
Tosh JC; Longworth LJ; George E
Value Health; 2011 Jan; 14(1):102-9. PubMed ID: 21211492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. ViibraTip for Testing Vibration Perception to Detect Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance.
Willits I; Cole H; Jones R; Dimmock P; Arber M; Craig J; Sims A
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2015 Aug; 13(4):315-24. PubMed ID: 26093645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A thematic analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of manufacturers' submissions to the NICE Single Technology Assessment (STA) process.
Carroll C; Kaltenthaler E; FitzGerald P; Boland A; Dickson R
Health Policy; 2011 Oct; 102(2-3):136-44. PubMed ID: 21763025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. The status of modeled claims.
Langley PC
J Med Econ; 2015; 18(12):991-2. PubMed ID: 26549706
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. E-vita open plus for treating complex aneurysms and dissections of the thoracic aorta: a NICE medical technology guidance.
Radhakrishnan M; Peacock J; Rua T; Clough RE; Ofuya M; Wang Y; Morris E; Lewis C; Keevil S
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2014 Oct; 12(5):485-95. PubMed ID: 25056415
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Assessment of Devices, Diagnostics and Digital Technologies: A Review of NICE Medical Technologies Guidance.
Crispi F; Naci H; Barkauskaite E; Osipenko L; Mossialos E
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2019 Apr; 17(2):189-211. PubMed ID: 30367349
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The use of exploratory analyses within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence single technology appraisal process: an evaluation and qualitative analysis.
Kaltenthaler E; Carroll C; Hill-McManus D; Scope A; Holmes M; Rice S; Rose M; Tappenden P; Woolacott N
Health Technol Assess; 2016 Apr; 20(26):1-48. PubMed ID: 27049841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Linking the Regulatory and Reimbursement Processes for Medical Devices: The Need for Integrated Assessments.
Ciani O; Wilcher B; van Giessen A; Taylor RS
Health Econ; 2017 Feb; 26 Suppl 1():13-29. PubMed ID: 28139087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Exploring Uncertainty in Economic Evaluations of Drugs and Medical Devices: Lessons from the First Review of Manufacturers' Submissions to the French National Authority for Health.
Ghabri S; Hamers FF; Josselin JM
Pharmacoeconomics; 2016 Jun; 34(6):617-24. PubMed ID: 26829942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. A cure for old age. Why NHS must act now to save the deteriorating asset base.
Health Serv J; 2013 Nov; 123(6376):19. PubMed ID: 24416973
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Review of the role of NICE in promoting the adoption of innovative cardiac technologies.
Groves PH; Pomfrett C; Marlow M
Heart; 2018 Nov; 104(22):1817-1822. PubMed ID: 29773657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Seeing the NICE side of cost-effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals.
Bryan S; Williams I; McIver S
Health Econ; 2007 Feb; 16(2):179-93. PubMed ID: 16960851
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Are the UK systems of innovation and evaluation of medical devices compatible? The role of NICE's Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP).
Chapman AM; Taylor CA; Girling AJ
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2014 Aug; 12(4):347-57. PubMed ID: 24934924
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The extent and quality of qualitative evidence included in health technology assessments: a review of submissions to NICE and CADTH.
Szabo SM; Hawkins NS; Germeni E
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2023 Dec; 40(1):e6. PubMed ID: 38126273
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. ASSESSING THE VALUE OF INNOVATIVE MEDICAL DEVICES AND DIAGNOSTICS: THE IMPORTANCE OF CLEAR AND RELEVANT CLAIMS OF BENEFIT.
Campbell B; Campbell M; Dobson L; Higgins J; Dillon B; Marlow M; Pomfrett CJD
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2018 Jan; 34(4):419-424. PubMed ID: 30025548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
