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 *

187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30098678)

  • 21. Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines.
    Versteegh MM; Brouwer WBF
    Soc Sci Med; 2016 Sep; 165():66-74. PubMed ID: 27497260
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Test-Retest Reliability of Discrete Choice Experiment for Valuations of QLU-C10D Health States.
    Gamper EM; Holzner B; King MT; Norman R; Viney R; Nerich V; Kemmler G
    Value Health; 2018 Aug; 21(8):958-966. PubMed ID: 30098674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. German tariffs for the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM) for use in economic evaluations at the end of life.
    Dams J; Huynh E; Riedel-Heller S; Löbner M; Brettschneider C; König HH
    Eur J Health Econ; 2021 Apr; 22(3):365-380. PubMed ID: 33475868
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life.
    Rowen D; Brazier J; Mukuria C; Keetharuth A; Risa Hole A; Tsuchiya A; Whyte S; Shackley P
    Med Decis Making; 2016 Feb; 36(2):210-22. PubMed ID: 26670663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The DEP-6D, a new preference-based measure to assess health states of dependency.
    Rodríguez-Míguez E; Abellán-Perpiñán JM; Alvarez XC; González XM; Sampayo AR
    Soc Sci Med; 2016 Mar; 153():210-9. PubMed ID: 26921836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Deriving time discounting correction factors for TTO tariffs.
    Attema AE; Brouwer WB
    Health Econ; 2014 Apr; 23(4):410-25. PubMed ID: 23564665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. What Difference Does It Make? A Comparison of Health State Preferences Elicited From the General Population and From People With Multiple Sclerosis.
    Goodwin E; Green C; Hawton A
    Value Health; 2020 Feb; 23(2):242-250. PubMed ID: 32113630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Valuing Health Using Time Trade-Off and Discrete Choice Experiment Methods: Does Dimension Order Impact on Health State Values?
    Mulhern B; Shah K; Janssen MF; Longworth L; Ibbotson R
    Value Health; 2016; 19(2):210-7. PubMed ID: 27021755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Eight Dimension (FACT-8D), a Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument Derived From the Cancer-Specific FACT-General (FACT-G) Quality of Life Questionnaire: Development and Australian Value Set.
    King MT; Norman R; Mercieca-Bebber R; Costa DSJ; McTaggart-Cowan H; Peacock S; Janda M; Müller F; Viney R; Pickard AS; Cella D;
    Value Health; 2021 Jun; 24(6):862-873. PubMed ID: 34119085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Valuing the SF-6Dv2 Classification System in the United Kingdom Using a Discrete-choice Experiment With Duration.
    Mulhern BJ; Bansback N; Norman R; Brazier J;
    Med Care; 2020 Jun; 58(6):566-573. PubMed ID: 32221100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Are decisions using cost-utility analyses robust to choice of SF-36/SF-12 preference-based algorithm?
    Pickard AS; Wang Z; Walton SM; Lee TA
    Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2005 Mar; 3():11. PubMed ID: 15748287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states.
    Norman R; Cronin P; Viney R
    Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2013 Jun; 11(3):287-98. PubMed ID: 23649892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Sequence effects, health profiles, and the QALY model: in search of realistic modeling.
    Krabbe PF; Bonsel GJ
    Med Decis Making; 1998; 18(2):178-86. PubMed ID: 9566451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Outcomes of social care for adults: developing a preference-weighted measure.
    Netten A; Burge P; Malley J; Potoglou D; Towers AM; Brazier J; Flynn T; Forder J; Wall B
    Health Technol Assess; 2012; 16(16):1-166. PubMed ID: 22459668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Is bad living better than good death? Impact of demographic and cultural factors on health state preference.
    Jin X; Liu GG; Luo N; Li H; Guan H; Xie F
    Qual Life Res; 2016 Apr; 25(4):979-86. PubMed ID: 26346987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. How Should Discrete Choice Experiments with Duration Choice Sets Be Presented for the Valuation of Health States?
    Mulhern B; Norman R; Shah K; Bansback N; Longworth L; Viney R
    Med Decis Making; 2018 Apr; 38(3):306-318. PubMed ID: 29084472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Health State Values Derived from People with Multiple Sclerosis for a Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measure: Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-Eight Dimensions-Patient Version (MSIS-8D-P).
    Goodwin E; Green C; Hawton A
    Value Health; 2018 Nov; 21(11):1338-1345. PubMed ID: 30442282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values.
    Bansback N; Brazier J; Tsuchiya A; Anis A
    J Health Econ; 2012 Jan; 31(1):306-18. PubMed ID: 22197308
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Time trade-off and ranking exercises are sensitive to different dimensions of EQ-5D health states.
    Rand-Hendriksen K; Augestad LA
    Value Health; 2012; 15(5):777-82. PubMed ID: 22867789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Choice Defines QALYs: A US Valuation of the EQ-5D-5L.
    Craig BM; Rand K
    Med Care; 2018 Jun; 56(6):529-536. PubMed ID: 29668646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.