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 *

206 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30030816)

  • 1. Model Structuring for Economic Evaluations of New Health Technologies.
    Haji Ali Afzali H; Bojke L; Karnon J
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2018 Nov; 36(11):1309-1319. PubMed ID: 30030816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Exploring structural uncertainty in model-based economic evaluations.
    Afzali HH; Karnon J
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2015 May; 33(5):435-43. PubMed ID: 25601288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Who does the numbers? The role of third-party technology assessment to inform health systems' decision-making about the funding of health technologies.
    Barbieri M; Hawkins N; Sculpher M
    Value Health; 2009; 12(2):193-201. PubMed ID: 18700865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Development and Use of Disease-Specific (Reference) Models for Economic Evaluations of Health Technologies: An Overview of Key Issues and Potential Solutions.
    Frederix GW; Haji Ali Afzali H; Dasbach EJ; Ward RL
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2015 Aug; 33(8):777-81. PubMed ID: 25827099
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment.
    Philips Z; Bojke L; Sculpher M; Claxton K; Golder S
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2006; 24(4):355-71. PubMed ID: 16605282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Approaches for economic evaluations of health care technologies.
    Tarride JE; Blackhouse G; Bischof M; McCarron EC; Lim M; Ferrusi IL; Xie F; Goeree R
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2009 May; 6(5):307-16. PubMed ID: 19394571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. An introduction to the methods of cost-effectiveness analysis.
    Drug Ther Bull; 2012 Jul; 50(7):81-4. PubMed ID: 22789768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Estimating the Reference Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio for the Australian Health System.
    Edney LC; Haji Ali Afzali H; Cheng TC; Karnon J
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2018 Feb; 36(2):239-252. PubMed ID: 29273843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Using health state utility values in models exploring the cost-effectiveness of health technologies.
    Ara R; Wailoo A
    Value Health; 2012; 15(6):971-4. PubMed ID: 22999149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Economic evaluation guidelines in Latin America: a current snapshot.
    Augustovski F; Garay OU; Pichon-Riviere A; Rubinstein A; Caporale JE
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2010 Oct; 10(5):525-37. PubMed ID: 20950069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Transparency in Health Economic Modeling: Options, Issues and Potential Solutions.
    Wu EQ; Zhou ZY; Xie J; Metallo C; Thokala P
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2019 Nov; 37(11):1349-1354. PubMed ID: 31591672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluation: an audit of NICE current practice and a review of its use and value in decision-making.
    Andronis L; Barton P; Bryan S
    Health Technol Assess; 2009 Jun; 13(29):iii, ix-xi, 1-61. PubMed ID: 19500484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Presentation of economic evaluation results.
    Chaikledkaew U
    J Med Assoc Thai; 2014 May; 97 Suppl 5():S72-80. PubMed ID: 24964702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Resource modelling: the missing piece of the HTA jigsaw?
    Thokala P; Dixon S; Jahn B
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2015 Mar; 33(3):193-203. PubMed ID: 25411095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Informing disinvestment through cost-effectiveness modelling: is lack of data a surmountable barrier?
    Karnon J; Carlton J; Czoski-Murray C; Smith K
    Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2009; 7(1):1-9. PubMed ID: 19558190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on good research practices--budget impact analysis.
    Mauskopf JA; Sullivan SD; Annemans L; Caro J; Mullins CD; Nuijten M; Orlewska E; Watkins J; Trueman P
    Value Health; 2007; 10(5):336-47. PubMed ID: 17888098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Health technology assessment in Brazil - an international perspective.
    Lima SGG; Brito C; Andrade CJC
    Cien Saude Colet; 2019 May; 24(5):1709-1722. PubMed ID: 31166506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Revolution then evolution: the advance of health economic evaluation in Australia.
    Lopert R; Viney R
    Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes; 2014; 108(7):360-6. PubMed ID: 25444293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.