285 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27908281)
21. 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]
22. Acceptance of health technology assessment submissions with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios above the cost-effectiveness threshold.
Griffiths EA; Hendrich JK; Stoddart SD; Walsh SC
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res; 2015; 7():463-76. PubMed ID: 26366099
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Association Between the Use of Surrogate Measures in Pivotal Trials and Health Technology Assessment Decisions: A Retrospective Analysis of NICE and CADTH Reviews of Cancer Drugs.
Pinto A; Naci H; Neez E; Mossialos E
Value Health; 2020 Mar; 23(3):319-327. PubMed ID: 32197727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada.
Clement FM; Harris A; Li JJ; Yong K; Lee KM; Manns BJ
JAMA; 2009 Oct; 302(13):1437-43. PubMed ID: 19809025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Which factors enhance positive drug reimbursement recommendation in Scotland? A retrospective analysis 2006-2013.
Charokopou M; Majer IM; Raad Jd; Broekhuizen S; Postma M; Heeg B
Value Health; 2015 Mar; 18(2):284-91. PubMed ID: 25773564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Impact of patient outcomes and cost aspects on reimbursement recommendations in Poland in 2012-2014.
Malinowski KP; Kawalec P; Trąbka W
Health Policy; 2016 Nov; 120(11):1249-1255. PubMed ID: 27884491
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Patients' perspectives can be integrated in health technology assessments: an exploratory analysis of CADTH Common Drug Review.
Berglas S; Jutai L; MacKean G; Weeks L
Res Involv Engagem; 2016; 2():21. PubMed ID: 29062521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Historical and projected public spending on drugs for rare diseases in Canada between 2010 and 2025.
Lech R; Chow G; Mann K; Mott P; Malmberg C; Forte L
Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2022 Oct; 17(1):371. PubMed ID: 36209128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. What impact does 'conventional' economic evaluation have on patient access to new orphan medicines? A comparative study of their reimbursement in Australia (2005-2012).
Wonder M; Chin G
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2015; 15(5):843-50. PubMed ID: 25938794
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Assessment of FDA-Approved Drugs Not Recommended for Use or Reimbursement in Other Countries, 2017-2020.
Pham C; Le K; Draves M; Seoane-Vazquez E
JAMA Intern Med; 2023 Apr; 183(4):290-297. PubMed ID: 36780147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Engaging the Canadian public on reimbursement decision-making for drugs for rare diseases: a national online survey.
Polisena J; Burgess M; Mitton C; Lynd LD
BMC Health Serv Res; 2017 May; 17(1):372. PubMed ID: 28549479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Towards a Transparent, Credible, Evidence-Based Decision-Making Process of New Drug Listing on the Hong Kong Hospital Authority Drug Formulary: Challenges and Suggestions.
Wong CKH; Wu O; Cheung BMY
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2018 Feb; 16(1):5-14. PubMed ID: 28702874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. The role of economic evidence in Canadian oncology reimbursement decision-making: to lambda and beyond.
Rocchi A; Menon D; Verma S; Miller E
Value Health; 2008; 11(4):771-83. PubMed ID: 18179658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. International experiences in multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) for evaluating orphan drugs: a scoping review.
Lasalvia P; Prieto-Pinto L; Moreno M; Castrillón J; Romano G; Garzón-Orjuela N; Rosselli D
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2019 Aug; 19(4):409-420. PubMed ID: 31210065
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. The estimation of health state utility values in rare diseases: do the approaches in submissions for NICE technology appraisals reflect the existing literature? A scoping review.
Meregaglia M; Nicod E; Drummond M
Eur J Health Econ; 2023 Sep; 24(7):1151-1216. PubMed ID: 36335234
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Review of regulatory recommendations for orphan drug submissions in the Netherlands and Scotland: focus on the underlying pharmacoeconomic evaluations.
Vegter S; Rozenbaum MH; Postema R; Tolley K; Postma MJ
Clin Ther; 2010 Aug; 32(9):1651-61. PubMed ID: 20974323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Activities of the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance: An Observational Analysis.
Rocchi A; Mills F
J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol; 2018 Aug; 25(2):e12-e22. PubMed ID: 30725539
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The correlation between HTA recommendations and reimbursement status of orphan drugs in Europe.
Kawalec P; Sagan A; Pilc A
Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2016 Sep; 11(1):122. PubMed ID: 27600717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Timeliness of Health Technology Assessments and Price Negotiations for Oncology Drugs in Canada.
Rawson NSB; Stewart DJ
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res; 2024; 16():437-445. PubMed ID: 38812711
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. An impact analysis of the implementation of health technology assessment for new treatment of orphan diseases in Japan.
Kogushi K; Ogawa T; Ikeda S
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2020 Oct; 20(5):455-471. PubMed ID: 31496361
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
