175 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28139084)
1. 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]
2. Key Recommendations from the MedtecHTA Project.
Tarricone R; Torbica A; Drummond M;
Health Econ; 2017 Feb; 26 Suppl 1():145-152. PubMed ID: 28139086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Characterising Uncertainty in the Assessment of Medical Devices and Determining Future Research Needs.
Rothery C; Claxton K; Palmer S; Epstein D; Tarricone R; Sculpher M
Health Econ; 2017 Feb; 26 Suppl 1():109-123. PubMed ID: 28139090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Adoption Decisions for Medical Devices in the Field of Cardiology: Results from a European Survey.
Hatz MH; Schreyögg J; Torbica A; Boriani G; Blankart CR
Health Econ; 2017 Feb; 26 Suppl 1():124-144. PubMed ID: 28139093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Intrinsic properties of medical devices: considerations for economic evaluation.
Basu R; Eggington S
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2019 Dec; 19(6):619-626. PubMed ID: 31721598
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. HTA of medical devices: Challenges and ideas for the future from a European perspective.
Fuchs S; Olberg B; Panteli D; Perleth M; Busse R
Health Policy; 2017 Mar; 121(3):215-229. PubMed ID: 27751533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Medical electronics: buy now.
European Coordination Committee of Radiological and Electromedical Manufacturers
Med Device Technol; 2003 Jun; 14(5):37. PubMed ID: 12852124
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Clinical studies of innovative medical devices: what level of evidence for hospital-based health technology assessment?
Boudard A; Martelli N; Prognon P; Pineau J
J Eval Clin Pract; 2013 Aug; 19(4):697-702. PubMed ID: 23510375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Health technology assessment of medical devices: a survey of non-European union agencies.
Ciani O; Wilcher B; Blankart CR; Hatz M; Rupel VP; Erker RS; Varabyova Y; Taylor RS
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2015 Jan; 31(3):154-65. PubMed ID: 26044729
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Health technology assessment for medical devices in Europe. What must be considered.
Siebert M; Clauss LC; Carlisle M; Casteels B; de Jong P; Kreuzer M; Sanghera S; Stokoe G; Trueman P; Lang AW;
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2002; 18(3):733-40. PubMed ID: 12391964
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. TAXONOMY OF MEDICAL DEVICES IN THE LOGIC OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT.
Henschke C; Panteli D; Perleth M; Busse R
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2015 Jan; 31(5):324-30. PubMed ID: 26711471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A review of the economic tools for assessing new medical devices.
Craig JA; Carr L; Hutton J; Glanville J; Iglesias CP; Sims AJ
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2015 Feb; 13(1):15-27. PubMed ID: 25139635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT METHODS GUIDELINES FOR MEDICAL DEVICES: HOW CAN WE ADDRESS THE GAPS? THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF MEDICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE.
Polisena J; Castaldo R; Ciani O; Federici C; Borsci S; Ritrovato M; Clark D; Pecchia L
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2018 Jan; 34(3):276-289. PubMed ID: 29909792
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Assessment and non-clinical impact of medical devices.
Dervaux B; Szwarcensztein K; Josseran A; ; Barna A; Carbonneil C; Chevrie K; Debroucker F; Grumblat A; Grumel O; Massol J; Maugendre P; Méchin H; Orlikowski D; Roussel C; Rumeau-Pichon C; Sales JP; Vicaut E
Therapie; 2015; 70(1):57-68. PubMed ID: 25747839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Are current clinical studies on artificial intelligence-based medical devices comprehensive enough to support a full health technology assessment? A systematic review.
Farah L; Davaze-Schneider J; Martin T; Nguyen P; Borget I; Martelli N
Artif Intell Med; 2023 Jun; 140():102547. PubMed ID: 37210155
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Factors influencing coverage decisions on medical devices: A retrospective analysis of 78 medical device appraisals for the Austrian hospital benefit catalogue 2008-2015.
Kisser A; Tüchler H; Erdös J; Wild C
Health Policy; 2016 Aug; 120(8):903-12. PubMed ID: 27344197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
