BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

170 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28366905)

  • 1. Public Reasoning and Health-Care Priority Setting: The Case of NICE.
    Rumbold B; Weale A; Rid A; Wilson J; Littlejohns P
    Kennedy Inst Ethics J; 2017; 27(1):107-134. PubMed ID: 28366905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. NICE and Fair? Health Technology Assessment Policy Under the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 1999-2018.
    Charlton V
    Health Care Anal; 2020 Sep; 28(3):193-227. PubMed ID: 31325000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Justice, Transparency and the Guiding Principles of the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
    Charlton V
    Health Care Anal; 2022 Jun; 30(2):115-145. PubMed ID: 34750743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Does NICE apply the rule of rescue in its approach to highly specialised technologies?
    Charlton V
    J Med Ethics; 2022 Feb; 48(2):118-125. PubMed ID: 33685978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. An empirical ethics study of the coherence of NICE technology appraisal policy and its implications for moral justification.
    Charlton V; DiStefano M
    BMC Med Ethics; 2024 Mar; 25(1):28. PubMed ID: 38448909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Exorcising the positivist ghost in the priority-setting machine: NICE and the demise of the 'social value judgement'.
    Charlton V; Weale A
    Health Econ Policy Law; 2021 Oct; 16(4):505-511. PubMed ID: 33568251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Innovation as a value in healthcare priority-setting: the UK experience.
    Charlton V; Rid A
    Soc Justice Res; 2019; 32(2):208-238. PubMed ID: 31281204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The use of cost-effectiveness by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): no(t yet an) exemplar of a deliberative process.
    Schlander M
    J Med Ethics; 2008 Jul; 34(7):534-9. PubMed ID: 18591289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Some inconsistencies in NICE's consideration of social values.
    Paulden M; O'Mahony JF; Culyer AJ; McCabe C
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2014 Nov; 32(11):1043-53. PubMed ID: 25145802
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The normative grounds for NICE decision-making: a narrative cross-disciplinary review of empirical studies.
    Charlton V
    Health Econ Policy Law; 2022 Oct; 17(4):444-470. PubMed ID: 35293306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. NICE's social value judgements about equity in health and health care.
    Shah KK; Cookson R; Culyer AJ; Littlejohns P
    Health Econ Policy Law; 2013 Apr; 8(2):145-65. PubMed ID: 22717361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The cancer technology appraisal programme of the UK's National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
    Littlejohns P; Barnett D; Longson C;
    Lancet Oncol; 2003 Apr; 4(4):242-50. PubMed ID: 12681268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Modifying NICE's Approach to Equity Weighting.
    Paulden M; McCabe C
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2021 Feb; 39(2):147-160. PubMed ID: 33517512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. What do district health planners in Tanzania think about improving priority setting using 'Accountability for reasonableness'?
    Mshana S; Shemilu H; Ndawi B; Momburi R; Olsen OE; Byskov J; Martin DK
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2007 Nov; 7():180. PubMed ID: 17997824
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. DECISION-COMPONENTS OF NICE'S TECHNOLOGY APPRAISALS ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK.
    de Folter J; Trusheim M; Jonsson P; Garner S
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2018 Jan; 34(2):163-171. PubMed ID: 29633673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. SARS and hospital priority setting: a qualitative case study and evaluation.
    Bell JA; Hyland S; DePellegrin T; Upshur RE; Bernstein M; Martin DK
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2004 Dec; 4(1):36. PubMed ID: 15606924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Fairness and accountability for reasonableness. Do the views of priority setting decision makers differ across health systems and levels of decision making?
    Kapiriri L; Norheim OF; Martin DK
    Soc Sci Med; 2009 Feb; 68(4):766-73. PubMed ID: 19070414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Decentralized health care priority-setting in Tanzania: evaluating against the accountability for reasonableness framework.
    Maluka S; Kamuzora P; San Sebastiån M; Byskov J; Olsen ØE; Shayo E; Ndawi B; Hurtig AK
    Soc Sci Med; 2010 Aug; 71(4):751-9. PubMed ID: 20554365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Priority setting in a hospital critical care unit: qualitative case study.
    Mielke J; Martin DK; Singer PA
    Crit Care Med; 2003 Dec; 31(12):2764-8. PubMed ID: 14668612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Financial interests of patient organisations contributing to technology assessment at England's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: policy review.
    Mandeville KL; Barker R; Packham A; Sowerby C; Yarrow K; Patrick H
    BMJ; 2019 Jan; 364():k5300. PubMed ID: 30651227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.