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 *

190 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28854927)

  • 61. 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]  

  • 62. [Cost-effectiveness of cancer drug treatments].
    Akazawa M
    Nihon Rinsho; 2015 Feb; 73 Suppl 2():706-12. PubMed ID: 25831852
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. Factors affecting the uptake of new medicines in secondary care - a literature review.
    Chauhan D; Mason A
    J Clin Pharm Ther; 2008 Aug; 33(4):339-48. PubMed ID: 18613851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. Application of a policy framework for the public funding of drugs for rare diseases.
    Winquist E; Coyle D; Clarke JT; Evans GA; Seager C; Chan W; Martin J
    J Gen Intern Med; 2014 Aug; 29 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):S774-9. PubMed ID: 25029973
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. Valuing end-of-life care in the United States: the case of new cancer drugs.
    Sorenson C
    Health Econ Policy Law; 2012 Oct; 7(4):411-30. PubMed ID: 23079300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. Delayed access to treatments for rare diseases: who's to blame?
    Feltmate K; Janiszewski PM; Gingerich S; Cloutier M
    Respirology; 2015 Apr; 20(3):361-9. PubMed ID: 25722183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. [Cancer: Is it really so different? Particularities of oncologic drugs from the perspective of the pharmaceutical regulatory agency].
    Enzmann H; Broich K
    Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes; 2013; 107(2):120-8. PubMed ID: 23663906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Limits on use of health economic assessments for rare diseases.
    Hyry HI; Stern AD; Cox TM; Roos JC
    QJM; 2014 Mar; 107(3):241-5. PubMed ID: 24453281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. The public funding of expensive cancer therapies: synthesizing the "3Es"--evidence, economics, and ethics.
    Kirby J; Somers E; Simpson C; McPhee J
    Organ Ethic; 2008; 4(2):97-108. PubMed ID: 18839752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Why orphan drug coverage reimbursement decision-making needs patient and public involvement.
    Douglas CM; Wilcox E; Burgess M; Lynd LD
    Health Policy; 2015 May; 119(5):588-96. PubMed ID: 25641123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. How should cost-effectiveness analysis be used in health technology coverage decisions? Evidence from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence approach.
    Williams I; Bryan S; McIver S
    J Health Serv Res Policy; 2007 Apr; 12(2):73-9. PubMed ID: 17407655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Effects of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's technology appraisals on prescribing and net ingredient costs of drugs in the National Health Service in England.
    Dietrich ES
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2009 Jul; 25(3):262-71. PubMed ID: 19619344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. Factors associated with positive and negative recommendations for cancer and non-cancer drugs for rare diseases in Canada.
    Nagase FNI; Stafinski T; Sun J; Jhangri G; Menon D
    Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2019 Jun; 14(1):127. PubMed ID: 31174574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Cost Effectiveness of Monoclonal Antibody Therapy for Rare Diseases: A Systematic Review.
    Park T; Griggs SK; Suh DC
    BioDrugs; 2015 Aug; 29(4):259-74. PubMed ID: 26263903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. 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]  

  • 76. The patient experience of patient-centered communication with nurses in the hospital setting: a qualitative systematic review protocol.
    Newell S; Jordan Z
    JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2015 Jan; 13(1):76-87. PubMed ID: 26447009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. Providing guidance to the NHS: The Scottish Medicines Consortium and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence compared.
    Cairns J
    Health Policy; 2006 Apr; 76(2):134-43. PubMed ID: 15982779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Reimbursed Price of Orphan Drugs: Current Strategies and Potential Improvements.
    Mincarone P; Leo CG; Sabina S; Sarriá-Santamera A; Taruscio D; Serrano-Aguilar PG; Kanavos P
    Public Health Genomics; 2017; 20(1):1-8. PubMed ID: 28359063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Design of patient access schemes in the UK: influence of health technology assessment by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
    Jarosławski S; Toumi M
    Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2011 Jul; 9(4):209-15. PubMed ID: 21682349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Funding therapies for rare diseases: an ethical dilemma with a potential solution.
    Taylor C; Jan S; Thompson K
    Aust Health Rev; 2018 Feb; 42(1):117-119. PubMed ID: 28202130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.