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.
2. Cost-utility analysis of fracture risk assessment using microRNAs compared with standard tools and no monitoring in the Austrian female population. Walter E; Dellago H; Grillari J; Dimai HP; Hackl M Bone; 2018 Mar; 108():44-54. PubMed ID: 29269173 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening strategies for hip fracture prevention in older Chinese people: a decision tree modeling study in the Mr. OS and Ms. OS cohort in Hong Kong. Su Y; Lai FTT; Yip BHK; Leung JCS; Kwok TCY Osteoporos Int; 2018 Aug; 29(8):1793-1805. PubMed ID: 29774400 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Impact of generic alendronate cost on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and treatment. Nayak S; Roberts MS; Greenspan SL PLoS One; 2012; 7(3):e32879. PubMed ID: 22427903 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Cost effectiveness of ultrasound and bone densitometry for osteoporosis screening in post-menopausal women. Mueller D; Gandjour A Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2008; 6(2-3):113-35. PubMed ID: 19231905 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Cost-Effectiveness of Coronary and Peripheral Artery Disease Antithrombotic Treatments in Finland. Soini E; Virtanen O; Väätäinen S; Briere JB; Bowrin K; Millier A Adv Ther; 2020 Jul; 37(7):3348-3369. PubMed ID: 32519113 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of osteoporosis screening and treatment strategy for postmenopausal Japanese women. Yoshimura M; Moriwaki K; Noto S; Takiguchi T Osteoporos Int; 2017 Feb; 28(2):643-652. PubMed ID: 27743068 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Nayak S; Roberts MS; Greenspan SL Ann Intern Med; 2011 Dec; 155(11):751-61. PubMed ID: 22147714 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of CT-Based Finite Element Modeling for Osteoporosis Screening in Secondary Fracture Prevention: An Early Health Technology Assessment in the Netherlands. Li J; Viceconti M; Li X; Bhattacharya P; Naimark DMJ; Osseyran A MDM Policy Pract; 2023; 8(2):23814683231202993. PubMed ID: 37900721 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cost-effectiveness of FRAX®-based intervention thresholds for management of osteoporosis in Singaporean women. Chandran M; Ganesan G; Tan KB; Reginster JY; Hiligsmann M Osteoporos Int; 2021 Jan; 32(1):133-144. PubMed ID: 32797250 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Cost-effectiveness of fracture prevention in rural women with limited access to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Ito K; Leslie WD Osteoporos Int; 2015 Aug; 26(8):2111-9. PubMed ID: 25807913 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Screening for osteoporosis in Chinese post-menopausal women: a health economic modelling study. Si L; Winzenberg TM; Chen M; Jiang Q; Neil A; Palmer AJ Osteoporos Int; 2016 Jul; 27(7):2259-2269. PubMed ID: 26815042 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A systematic review and economic evaluation of alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene and teriparatide for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Stevenson M; Jones ML; De Nigris E; Brewer N; Davis S; Oakley J Health Technol Assess; 2005 Jun; 9(22):1-160. PubMed ID: 15929857 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Osteoporosis Screening With Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry. Hsu CL; Wu PC; Yin CH; Chen CH; Lee KT; Lin CL; Shi HY Korean J Radiol; 2023 Dec; 24(12):1249-1259. PubMed ID: 38016684 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Denosumab: a cost-effective alternative for older men with osteoporosis from a Swedish payer perspective. Parthan A; Kruse M; Agodoa I; Silverman S; Orwoll E Bone; 2014 Feb; 59():105-13. PubMed ID: 24231131 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evidence to inform decision makers in Thailand: a cost-effectiveness analysis of screening and treatment strategies for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Kingkaew P; Maleewong U; Ngarmukos C; Teerawattananon Y Value Health; 2012; 15(1 Suppl):S20-8. PubMed ID: 22265062 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Cost effectiveness of denosumab versus oral bisphosphonates for postmenopausal osteoporosis in the US. Parthan A; Kruse M; Yurgin N; Huang J; Viswanathan HN; Taylor D Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2013 Oct; 11(5):485-97. PubMed ID: 23868102 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) for osteoporosis screening in US postmenopausal women: is it cost-effective? Yang J; Cosman F; Stone PW; Li M; Nieves JW Osteoporos Int; 2020 Dec; 31(12):2321-2335. PubMed ID: 32778935 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Cost-Effectiveness of Osteoporosis Screening Strategies for Men. Nayak S; Greenspan SL J Bone Miner Res; 2016 Jun; 31(6):1189-99. PubMed ID: 26751984 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Cost-effectiveness of romosozumab for the treatment of postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis at high risk of fracture in Sweden. Söreskog E; Lindberg I; Kanis JA; Åkesson KE; Willems D; Lorentzon M; Ström O; Berling P; Borgström F Osteoporos Int; 2021 Mar; 32(3):585-594. PubMed ID: 33409591 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]