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 *

203 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28854927)

  • 41. Decision making by NICE: examining the influences of evidence, process and context.
    Cerri KH; Knapp M; Fernández JL
    Health Econ Policy Law; 2014 Apr; 9(2):119-41. PubMed ID: 23688554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. 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]  

  • 43. A comparison of pharmaceutical reimbursement agencies' processes and methods in France and Scotland.
    Bending M; Hutton J; McGrath C
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2012 Apr; 28(2):187-94. PubMed ID: 22559763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. 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]  

  • 45. Appraisal of Novel Oncological Therapies by the Scottish Medicines Consortium and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: A Comparative Study of Six Years of Data.
    Taylor R
    Cureus; 2023 Dec; 15(12):e50560. PubMed ID: 38222244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. 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]  

  • 47. European perspective on the costs and cost-effectiveness of cancer therapies.
    Drummond MF; Mason AR
    J Clin Oncol; 2007 Jan; 25(2):191-5. PubMed ID: 17210939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Case Studies: Factors Influencing Divergent HTA Reimbursement Recommendations in Australia, Canada, England, and Scotland.
    Allen N; Walker SR; Liberti L; Salek S
    Value Health; 2017 Mar; 20(3):320-328. PubMed ID: 28292476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Relative effectiveness assessments of oncology medicines for pricing and reimbursement decisions in European countries.
    Kleijnen S; Lipska I; Leonardo Alves T; Meijboom K; Elsada A; Vervölgyi V; d'Andon A; Timoney A; Leufkens HG; De Boer A; Goettsch WG
    Ann Oncol; 2016 Sep; 27(9):1768-75. PubMed ID: 27329251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Rare essentials: drugs for rare diseases as essential medicines.
    Stolk P; Willemen MJ; Leufkens HG
    Bull World Health Organ; 2006 Sep; 84(9):745-51. PubMed ID: 17128345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. A discrete choice experiment investigating preferences for funding drugs used to treat orphan diseases: an exploratory study.
    Mentzakis E; Stefanowska P; Hurley J
    Health Econ Policy Law; 2011 Jul; 6(3):405-33. PubMed ID: 21205401
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. [Authorization and reimbursement of orphan drugs in an international comparison].
    Roll K; Stargardt T; Schreyögg J
    Gesundheitswesen; 2011 Aug; 73(8-9):504-14. PubMed ID: 20848380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. 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]  

  • 54. A deliberative framework to identify the need for real-life evidence building of new cancer drugs after interim funding decision.
    Leung L; de Lemos ML; Kovacic L
    J Oncol Pharm Pract; 2018 Dec; 24(8):584-598. PubMed ID: 28747103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Determinants of orphan drugs prices in France: a regression analysis.
    Korchagina D; Millier A; Vataire AL; Aballea S; Falissard B; Toumi M
    Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2017 Apr; 12(1):75. PubMed ID: 28427466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. LEGITIMACY OF MEDICINES FUNDING IN THE ERA OF ACCELERATED ACCESS.
    Pace J; Pearson SA; Lipworth W
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2017 Jan; 33(6):700-707. PubMed ID: 28893332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Brentuximab vedotin in relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma post-autologous stem cell transplant: a cost-effectiveness analysis in Scotland.
    Parker C; Woods B; Eaton J; Ma E; Selby R; Benson E; Engstrom A; Sajosi P; Briggs A; Bonthapally V
    J Med Econ; 2017 Jan; 20(1):8-18. PubMed ID: 27472034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. COST-EFFECTIVENESS IMPACTS CANCER CARE FUNDING DECISIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA, EVIDENCE FROM 1998 TO 2008.
    Ismail Z; Peacock SJ; Kovacic L; Hoch JS
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2017 Jan; 33(4):481-486. PubMed ID: 28871898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Comparing the ICERs in Medicine Reimbursement Submissions to NICE and PBAC-Does the Presence of an Explicit Threshold Affect the ICER Proposed?
    Wang S; Gum D; Merlin T
    Value Health; 2018 Aug; 21(8):938-943. PubMed ID: 30098671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Characteristics of clinician input in Canadian funding decisions for cancer drugs: a cross-sectional study based on CADTH reimbursement recommendations.
    Jenei K; Meyers DE
    BMJ Open; 2023 Oct; 13(10):e066378. PubMed ID: 37844982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.