199 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27480537)
21. On being NICE in the UK: guidelines for technology appraisal for the NHS in England and Wales.
Birch S; Gafni A
Health Econ; 2002 Apr; 11(3):185-91. PubMed ID: 11921316
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Unrelated Future Costs and Unrelated Future Benefits: Reflections on NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal.
Morton A; Adler AI; Bell D; Briggs A; Brouwer W; Claxton K; Craig N; Fischer A; McGregor P; van Baal P
Health Econ; 2016 Aug; 25(8):933-8. PubMed ID: 27374115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. The NICE Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP): manufacturer submission challenges.
Sprange K; Clift M
J R Soc Med; 2012 Apr; 105 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S4-11. PubMed ID: 22508972
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. The Debrisoft(®) Monofilament Debridement Pad for Use in Acute or Chronic Wounds: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance.
Meads C; Lovato E; Longworth L
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2015 Dec; 13(6):583-94. PubMed ID: 26315567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra.
Claxton K; Sculpher M; McCabe C; Briggs A; Akehurst R; Buxton M; Brazier J; O'Hagan T
Health Econ; 2005 Apr; 14(4):339-47. PubMed ID: 15736142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. The use of UK primary care databases in health technology assessments carried out by the National Institute for health and care excellence (NICE).
Leahy TP; Ramagopalan S; Sammon C
BMC Health Serv Res; 2020 Jul; 20(1):675. PubMed ID: 32698805
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Diagnostic Assessment Reviews: is cost-effectiveness analysis helpful or necessary?
Mistry H; Mason J
J Health Serv Res Policy; 2018 Oct; 23(4):222-242. PubMed ID: 30309266
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Challenges in the Assessment of Medical Devices: The MedtecHTA Project.
Tarricone R; Torbica A; Drummond M
Health Econ; 2017 Feb; 26 Suppl 1():5-12. PubMed ID: 28139084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Organisational impact: Definition and assessment methods for medical devices.
Roussel C; Carbonneil C; Audry A;
Therapie; 2016 Feb; 71(1):69-96. PubMed ID: 27080633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. After 20 Years of Using Economic Evaluation, Should NICE be Considered a Methods Innovator?
Sculpher M; Palmer S
Pharmacoeconomics; 2020 Mar; 38(3):247-257. PubMed ID: 31930460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Justifying the source of external comparators in single-arm oncology health technology submissions: a review of NICE and PBAC assessments.
Appiah K; Rizzo M; Sarri G; Hernandez L
J Comp Eff Res; 2024 Feb; 13(2):e230140. PubMed ID: 38174576
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluation: an audit of NICE current practice and a review of its use and value in decision-making.
Andronis L; Barton P; Bryan S
Health Technol Assess; 2009 Jun; 13(29):iii, ix-xi, 1-61. PubMed ID: 19500484
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. Health-state utility estimates for health technology assessment: a review of the manufacturers' submissions to the French National Authority for Health.
Hamers FF; Ghabri S; Le Gales C
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2017 Oct; 17(5):489-494. PubMed ID: 28133977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. A Review of NICE Methods and Processes Across Health Technology Assessment Programmes: Why the Differences and What is the Impact?
Cowles E; Marsden G; Cole A; Devlin N
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2017 Aug; 15(4):469-477. PubMed ID: 28130691
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. A primer on the assessment of medical technologies.
Matuszewski KA
Pharm Pract Manag Q; 1997 Jan; 16(4):53-65. PubMed ID: 10164160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. EXOGEN ultrasound bone healing system for long bone fractures with non-union or delayed healing: a NICE medical technology guidance.
Higgins A; Glover M; Yang Y; Bayliss S; Meads C; Lord J
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2014 Oct; 12(5):477-84. PubMed ID: 25060830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The XprESS Multi-Sinus Dilation System for the Treatment of Chronic Sinusitis: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance.
Jenks M; Willits I; Turner EE; Hewitt N; Arber M; Cole H; Craig J; Sims A
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2017 Oct; 15(5):567-582. PubMed ID: 28669043
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. The geko™ electro-stimulation device for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: a NICE medical technology guidance.
Summers JA; Clinch J; Radhakrishnan M; Healy A; McMillan V; Morris E; Rua T; Ofuya M; Wang Y; Dimmock PW; Lewis C; Peacock JL; Keevil SF
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2015 Apr; 13(2):135-47. PubMed ID: 25403719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Improving the Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Medical Devices.
Tarricone R; Callea G; Ogorevc M; Prevolnik Rupel V
Health Econ; 2017 Feb; 26 Suppl 1():70-92. PubMed ID: 28139085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
