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 *

145 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28029415)

  • 41. The role of budget impact and its relationship with cost-effectiveness in reimbursement decisions on health technologies in the Netherlands.
    Reckers-Droog V; Enzing J; Brouwer W
    Eur J Health Econ; 2024 Nov; 25(8):1449-1459. PubMed ID: 38411843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Similarities and differences between five European drug reimbursement systems.
    Franken M; le Polain M; Cleemput I; Koopmanschap M
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2012 Oct; 28(4):349-57. PubMed ID: 22989410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Transparency in practice: Evidence from 'verification analyses' issued by the Polish Agency for Health Technology Assessment in 2012-2015.
    Ozierański P; Löblová O; Nicholls N; Csanádi M; Kaló Z; McKee M; King L
    Health Econ Policy Law; 2019 Apr; 14(2):182-204. PubMed ID: 29307327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Health economic evaluations in reimbursement decision making in the Netherlands: time to take it seriously?
    Franken M; Koopmanschap M; Steenhoek A
    Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes; 2014; 108(7):383-9. PubMed ID: 25444296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. [Impact Reimbursement Act on the pharmaceutical market in Poland].
    Giermaziak W
    Pol Merkur Lekarski; 2014 Apr; 36(214):270-3. PubMed ID: 24868902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Value-based reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs: a scoping review and decision framework.
    Paulden M; Stafinski T; Menon D; McCabe C
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2015 Mar; 33(3):255-69. PubMed ID: 25412735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. European drug reimbursement systems' legitimacy: five-country comparison and policy tool.
    Cleemput I; Franken M; Koopmanschap M; le Polain M
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2012 Oct; 28(4):358-66. PubMed ID: 22980497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Health technology assessment process of a cardiovascular medical device in four different settings.
    Olry de Labry Lima A; Espín Balbino J; Lemgruber A; Caro Martínez A; García-Mochón L; Martín Ruiz E; Lessa F
    J Comp Eff Res; 2017 Oct; 6(7):591-600. PubMed ID: 29039685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Assessment of the pharmaceutical market in Poland after accession to the European Union.
    Willert PL
    Eur J Health Econ; 2007 Dec; 8(4):347-57. PubMed ID: 17186200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Impact of health technology assessment and managed entry schemes on reimbursement decisions of centrally authorised medicinal products in Belgium.
    Van Wilder P; Pirson M; Dupont A
    Eur J Clin Pharmacol; 2019 Jul; 75(7):895-900. PubMed ID: 30877328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Health technology assessment of new drugs for rare disorders in Canada: impact of disease prevalence and cost.
    Rawson NS
    Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2017 Mar; 12(1):59. PubMed ID: 28330479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Involving patients in health technology funding decisions: stakeholder perspectives on processes used in Australia.
    Lopes E; Street J; Carter D; Merlin T
    Health Expect; 2016 Apr; 19(2):331-44. PubMed ID: 25703958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Health benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals: An international comparison of decisions from Germany, England, Scotland and Australia.
    Fischer KE; Heisser T; Stargardt T
    Health Policy; 2016 Oct; 120(10):1115-1122. PubMed ID: 27628196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Predictors for reimbursement of oncology drugs in Belgium between 2002 and 2013.
    Pauwels K; Huys I; De Nys K; Casteels M; Simoens S
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2015; 15(5):859-68. PubMed ID: 25978862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. The impact of health technology assessment reports on decision making in Austria.
    Zechmeister I; Schumacher I
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2012 Jan; 28(1):77-84. PubMed ID: 22233544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Eight-year experience of using HTA in drug reimbursement: South Korea.
    Bae EY; Hong JM; Kwon HY; Jang S; Lee HJ; Bae S; Yang BM
    Health Policy; 2016 Jun; 120(6):612-20. PubMed ID: 27086557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. 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]  

  • 58. National reimbursement listing determinants of new cancer drugs: a retrospective analysis of 58 cancer treatment appraisals in 2007-2016 in South Korea.
    Kim ES; Kim JA; Lee EK
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2017 Aug; 17(4):401-409. PubMed ID: 28010146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Eliciting societal preferences of reimbursement decision criteria for anti cancer drugs in South Korea.
    Kwon SH; Park SK; Byun JH; Lee EK
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2017 Aug; 17(4):411-419. PubMed ID: 28019130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. The use of non-economic criteria in pricing and reimbursement decisions in Central and Eastern Europe: issues, trends and recommendations.
    Kolasa K; Kalo Z; Zah V
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2016 Aug; 16(4):483-8. PubMed ID: 27467881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.