90 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29767585)
1. Optimization of quality assurance to increase clinical utility and cost effectiveness of hereditary cancer testing.
Smith S; Marino I; Schaller J; Arnell C; Moyes K; Manley S
Per Med; 2017 May; 14(3):213-220. PubMed ID: 29767585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Genetic counselor review of genetic test orders in a reference laboratory reduces unnecessary testing.
Miller CE; Krautscheid P; Baldwin EE; Tvrdik T; Openshaw AS; Hart K; Lagrave D
Am J Med Genet A; 2014 May; 164A(5):1094-101. PubMed ID: 24665052
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Reduction of Health Care Costs and Improved Appropriateness of Incoming Test Orders: the Impact of Genetic Counselor Review in an Academic Genetic Testing Laboratory.
Wakefield E; Keller H; Mianzo H; Nagaraj CB; Tawde S; Ulm E
J Genet Couns; 2018 Sep; 27(5):1067-1073. PubMed ID: 29427196
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Genetic testing costs and compliance with clinical best practices.
Montanez K; Berninger T; Willis M; Harding A; Lutgendorf MA
J Genet Couns; 2020 Dec; 29(6):1186-1191. PubMed ID: 32356909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Different Genetic Testing Strategies for Lynch Syndrome in Taiwan.
Chen YE; Kao SS; Chung RH
PLoS One; 2016; 11(8):e0160599. PubMed ID: 27482709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Cost-effectiveness of testing for breast cancer susceptibility genes.
Holland ML; Huston A; Noyes K
Value Health; 2009; 12(2):207-16. PubMed ID: 18647256
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility.
American Society of Clinical Oncology
J Clin Oncol; 2003 Jun; 21(12):2397-406. PubMed ID: 12692171
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. How can we make laboratory testing safer?
Boone DJ
Clin Chem Lab Med; 2007; 45(6):708-11. PubMed ID: 17579521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. HER-2 testing and trastuzumab therapy for metastatic breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Elkin EB; Weinstein MC; Winer EP; Kuntz KM; Schnitt SJ; Weeks JC
J Clin Oncol; 2004 Mar; 22(5):854-63. PubMed ID: 14990641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Genomic profile of breast cancer: cost-effectiveness analysis from the Spanish National Healthcare System perspective.
Seguí MÁ; Crespo C; Cortés J; Lluch A; Brosa M; Becerra V; Chiavenna SM; Gracia A
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2014 Dec; 14(6):889-99. PubMed ID: 25213317
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Improving Molecular Genetic Test Utilization through Order Restriction, Test Review, and Guidance.
Riley JD; Procop GW; Kottke-Marchant K; Wyllie R; Lacbawan FL
J Mol Diagn; 2015 May; 17(3):225-9. PubMed ID: 25732008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The cost of an established quality assurance programme: is it worth it?
Eagle CJ; Davies JM; Pagenkopf D
Can J Anaesth; 1994 Sep; 41(9):813-7. PubMed ID: 7954999
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Screening blood donors for hereditary hemochromatosis: decision analysis model comparing genotyping to phenotyping.
Adams PC; Valberg LS
Am J Gastroenterol; 1999 Jun; 94(6):1593-600. PubMed ID: 10364030
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Cost-effectiveness evaluation of predictive molecular diagnostics using the example of hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC)].
Hagen A; Hessabi HK; Gorenoi V; Schönermark MP
Gesundheitswesen; 2008 Jan; 70(1):18-27. PubMed ID: 18273760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Good laboratory practices for biochemical genetic testing and newborn screening for inherited metabolic disorders.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
MMWR Recomm Rep; 2012 Apr; 61(RR-2):1-44. PubMed ID: 22475884
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparing cost effects of two quality strategies to improve test ordering in primary care: a randomized trial.
Verstappen WH; van Merode F; Grimshaw J; Dubois WI; Grol RP; van der Weijden T
Int J Qual Health Care; 2004 Oct; 16(5):391-8. PubMed ID: 15375100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Cost-effectiveness of risk-reducing surgeries in preventing hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.
Schrauder MG; Brunel-Geuder L; Häberle L; Wunderle M; Hoyer J; Reis A; Schulz-Wendtland R; Beckmann MW; Lux MP
Breast; 2017 Apr; 32():186-191. PubMed ID: 28214786
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Cost-Effectiveness of the 21 Gene Assay in Patients with Node-Positive Breast Cancer].
Fischer L; Arnold M; Kirsch F; Leidl R
Gesundheitswesen; 2016 Nov; 78(11):772-780. PubMed ID: 26107965
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Universal Versus Targeted Screening for Lynch Syndrome: Comparing Ascertainment and Costs Based on Clinical Experience.
Erten MZ; Fernandez LP; Ng HK; McKinnon WC; Heald B; Koliba CJ; Greenblatt MS
Dig Dis Sci; 2016 Oct; 61(10):2887-2895. PubMed ID: 27384051
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparative effectiveness of screening strategies for Lynch syndrome.
Barzi A; Sadeghi S; Kattan MW; Meropol NJ
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2015 Apr; 107(4):. PubMed ID: 25794514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
