288 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29751764)
21. Identifying and Revealing the Importance of Decision-Making Criteria for Health Technology Assessment: A Retrospective Analysis of Reimbursement Recommendations in Ireland.
Schmitz S; McCullagh L; Adams R; Barry M; Walsh C
Pharmacoeconomics; 2016 Sep; 34(9):925-37. PubMed ID: 27034245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Horizon scanning in Brazil: outputs and repercussions.
Gomes PTC; Mata VE; Borges TC; Galato D
Rev Saude Publica; 2019; 53():111. PubMed ID: 31800908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: qualitative study and methodological review.
Chilcott J; Tappenden P; Rawdin A; Johnson M; Kaltenthaler E; Paisley S; Papaioannou D; Shippam A
Health Technol Assess; 2010 May; 14(25):iii-iv, ix-xii, 1-107. PubMed ID: 20501062
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Hospital-based health technology assessment (HTA) in Finland: a case study on collaboration between hospitals and the national HTA unit.
Halmesmäki E; Pasternack I; Roine R
Health Res Policy Syst; 2016 Apr; 14():25. PubMed ID: 27044400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. The use of exploratory analyses within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence single technology appraisal process: an evaluation and qualitative analysis.
Kaltenthaler E; Carroll C; Hill-McManus D; Scope A; Holmes M; Rice S; Rose M; Tappenden P; Woolacott N
Health Technol Assess; 2016 Apr; 20(26):1-48. PubMed ID: 27049841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. National health technology assessment in Turkiye after a decade: are key principles followed?
Avşar TS; Yıldırım HH
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2023 Jul; 39(1):e52. PubMed ID: 37485616
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Impact assessment of Iran's health technology assessment programme.
Yazdizadeh B; Mohtasham F; Velayati A
Health Res Policy Syst; 2018 Feb; 16(1):15. PubMed ID: 29471838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Health technology assessment and judicial deference to priority-setting decisions in healthcare: Quasi-experimental analysis of right-to-health litigation in Brazil.
Wang D; Vasconcelos NP; Poirier MJ; Chieffi A; Mônaco C; Sritharan L; Van Katwyk SR; Hoffman SJ
Soc Sci Med; 2020 Nov; 265():113401. PubMed ID: 33250316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Transforming uncertainties into legitimate regulation? NICE and CONITEC agencies' decisions on rare diseases.
Vicente G; Cunico C; Leite SN
Cien Saude Colet; 2021 Nov; 26(11):5533-5546. PubMed ID: 34852088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. HTA'd in the USA: A Comparison of ICER in the United States with NICE in England and Wales.
Thokala P; Carlson JJ; Drummond M
J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2020 Sep; 26(9):1162-1170. PubMed ID: 32857653
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. The Role of Noncomparative Evidence in Health Technology Assessment Decisions.
Griffiths EA; Macaulay R; Vadlamudi NK; Uddin J; Samuels ER
Value Health; 2017 Dec; 20(10):1245-1251. PubMed ID: 29241883
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. The ISPOR Good Practices for Quality Improvement of Cost-Effectiveness Research Task Force Report.
McGhan WF; Al M; Doshi JA; Kamae I; Marx SE; Rindress D
Value Health; 2009; 12(8):1086-99. PubMed ID: 19744291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. [Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology resource allocation and assessment: so far and so near?].
Campolina AG; Soárez PC; Amaral FVD; Abe JM
Cad Saude Publica; 2017 Oct; 33(10):e00045517. PubMed ID: 29091169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Application of HTA research on policy decision-making.
Youngkong S
J Med Assoc Thai; 2014 May; 97 Suppl 5():S119-26. PubMed ID: 24964709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. Evidence-based decision-making within Australia's pharmaceutical benefits scheme.
Lopert R
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund); 2009 Jul; 60():1-13. PubMed ID: 19639714
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Health technology assessment in Poland and Scotland: comparison of process and decisions.
Kolasa K; Wasiak R
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2012 Jan; 28(1):70-6. PubMed ID: 22617739
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. [The Danish Health Technology Assessment model. A systematic review of Danish HTAs published by CEMTV from 1998 to 2004].
Draborg EU
Ugeskr Laeger; 2006 May; 168(21):2074-8. PubMed ID: 16768927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Towards Integrated Health Technology Assessment for Improving Decision Making in Selected Countries.
Oortwijn W; Determann D; Schiffers K; Tan SS; van der Tuin J
Value Health; 2017 Sep; 20(8):1121-1130. PubMed ID: 28964444
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
