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 *

242 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29124632)

  • 21. Immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplantation in children and adolescents: systematic review and economic evaluation.
    Haasova M; Snowsill T; Jones-Hughes T; Crathorne L; Cooper C; Varley-Campbell J; Mujica-Mota R; Coelho H; Huxley N; Lowe J; Dudley J; Marks S; Hyde C; Bond M; Anderson R
    Health Technol Assess; 2016 Aug; 20(61):1-324. PubMed ID: 27557331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The representation of public values in health technology assessment to inform funding decisions: the case of Australia's national funding bodies.
    Haji Ali Afzali H; Street J; Merlin T; Karnon J
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2021 Jan; 37():e22. PubMed ID: 33455592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Review of a decision by the Medical Services Advisory Committee based on health technology assessment of an emerging technology: the case for remotely assisted radical prostatectomy.
    O'Malley SP; Jordan E
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2007; 23(2):286-91. PubMed ID: 17493316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Health Technology Assessment in Australia: The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and Medical Services Advisory Committee.
    Kim H; Byrnes J; Goodall S;
    Value Health Reg Issues; 2021 May; 24():6-11. PubMed ID: 33429153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Approaches to Aggregation and Decision Making-A Health Economics Approach: An ISPOR Special Task Force Report [5].
    Phelps CE; Lakdawalla DN; Basu A; Drummond MF; Towse A; Danzon PM
    Value Health; 2018 Feb; 21(2):146-154. PubMed ID: 29477392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four European countries.
    Nicod E
    Eur J Health Econ; 2017 Jul; 18(6):715-730. PubMed ID: 27538758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches.
    Noorani HZ; Husereau DR; Boudreau R; Skidmore B
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2007; 23(3):310-5. PubMed ID: 17579932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Preferences for engagement in health technology assessment decision-making: a nominal group technique with members of the public.
    Wortley S; Tong A; Howard K
    BMJ Open; 2016 Feb; 6(2):e010265. PubMed ID: 26832433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Are adverse effects incorporated in economic models? An initial review of current practice.
    Craig D; McDaid C; Fonseca T; Stock C; Duffy S; Woolacott N
    Health Technol Assess; 2009 Dec; 13(62):1-71, 97-181, iii. PubMed ID: 20018146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Do different clinical evidence bases lead to discordant health-technology assessment decisions? An in-depth case series across three jurisdictions.
    Spinner DS; Birt J; Walter JW; Bowman L; Mauskopf J; Drummond MF; Copley-Merriman C
    Clinicoecon Outcomes Res; 2013; 5():69-85. PubMed ID: 23403392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Ixekizumab for Treating Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.
    Ramaekers BLT; Wolff RF; Pouwels X; Oosterhoff M; Van Giessen A; Worthy G; Noake C; Armstrong N; Kleijnen J; Joore MA
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2018 Aug; 36(8):917-927. PubMed ID: 29480455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of technologies used to visualise the seizure focus in people with refractory epilepsy being considered for surgery: a systematic review and decision-analytical model.
    Burch J; Hinde S; Palmer S; Beyer F; Minton J; Marson A; Wieshmann U; Woolacott N; Soares M
    Health Technol Assess; 2012; 16(34):1-157, iii-iv. PubMed ID: 22985954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. On the role of cost-effectiveness thresholds in healthcare priority setting.
    Siverskog J; Henriksson M
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2021 Jan; 37():e23. PubMed ID: 33491617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 'The problem is small enough, the problem is big enough': a qualitative study of health technology assessment and public policy on drug funding decisions for children.
    Denburg AE; Giacomini M; Ungar WJ; Abelson J
    Int J Equity Health; 2020 Mar; 19(1):45. PubMed ID: 32228588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada.
    Clement FM; Harris A; Li JJ; Yong K; Lee KM; Manns BJ
    JAMA; 2009 Oct; 302(13):1437-43. PubMed ID: 19809025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Introducing an Ethics Framework for health priority-setting in South Africa on the path to universal health coverage.
    Blaauw D; Chambers C; Chirwa T; Duba N; Gwyther L; Hofman K; London L; Masilela T; McKerrow N; Modupe O; Moeng L; Mubaiwa V; Nematswerani N; Ramkissoon Y; Saloojee Y; Tshabalala S; Valabhjee K; Versteeg-Mojanaga M; Barsdorf N; Conco D; DiStefano M; Li R; Chalkidou K; Faden R; Goldstein S; Hofman K; Krubiner CB; Merritt MW; Mosam A; Potgieter S; Tugendhaft A
    S Afr Med J; 2022 Mar; 112(3):240-244. PubMed ID: 35380528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Ranking the Criteria Used in the Appraisal of Drugs for Reimbursement: A Stated Preferences Elicitation With Health Technology Assessment Stakeholders Across Jurisdictional Contexts.
    Wranik WD; Jakubczyk M; Drachal K
    Value Health; 2020 Apr; 23(4):471-480. PubMed ID: 32327164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.