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)

  • 41. Health state valuation in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of the literature.
    Kularatna S; Whitty JA; Johnson NW; Scuffham PA
    Value Health; 2013; 16(6):1091-9. PubMed ID: 24041360
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Societal Preferences for Interventions with the Same Efficiency: Assessment and Application to Decision Making.
    Shiroiwa T; Saito S; Shimozuma K; Kodama S; Noto S; Fukuda T
    Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2016 Jun; 14(3):375-85. PubMed ID: 26940671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. An Australian discrete choice experiment to value eq-5d health states.
    Viney R; Norman R; Brazier J; Cronin P; King MT; Ratcliffe J; Street D
    Health Econ; 2014 Jun; 23(6):729-42. PubMed ID: 23765787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Development of an EORTC-8D utility algorithm for Sri Lanka.
    Kularatna S; Whitty JA; Johnson NW; Jayasinghe R; Scuffham PA
    Med Decis Making; 2015 Apr; 35(3):361-70. PubMed ID: 25403654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Health state utility instruments compared: inquiring into nonlinearity across EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI-3 and 15D.
    Gamst-Klaussen T; Chen G; Lamu AN; Olsen JA
    Qual Life Res; 2016 Jul; 25(7):1667-78. PubMed ID: 26687615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Comparison of FACT- and EQ-5D-based utility scores in cancer.
    Pickard AS; Ray S; Ganguli A; Cella D
    Value Health; 2012; 15(2):305-11. PubMed ID: 22433762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Validation of the underlying assumptions of the quality-adjusted life-years outcome: results from the ECHOUTCOME European project.
    Beresniak A; Medina-Lara A; Auray JP; De Wever A; Praet JC; Tarricone R; Torbica A; Dupont D; Lamure M; Duru G
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2015 Jan; 33(1):61-9. PubMed ID: 25230587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. The Impact of Different DCE-Based Approaches When Anchoring Utility Scores.
    Norman R; Mulhern B; Viney R
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2016 Aug; 34(8):805-14. PubMed ID: 27034244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Quality-of-life valuations of advanced breast cancer by New Zealand women.
    Milne RJ; Heaton-Brown KH; Hansen P; Thomas D; Harvey V; Cubitt A
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2006; 24(3):281-92. PubMed ID: 16519549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. National EQ-5D tariffs and quality-adjusted life-year estimation: comparison of UK, US and Danish utilities in south Swedish rheumatoid arthritis patients.
    Karlsson JA; Nilsson JÅ; Neovius M; Kristensen LE; Gülfe A; Saxne T; Geborek P
    Ann Rheum Dis; 2011 Dec; 70(12):2163-6. PubMed ID: 21859684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Estimating the SF-6D value set for a population-based sample of Brazilians.
    Cruz LN; Camey SA; Hoffmann JF; Rowen D; Brazier JE; Fleck MP; Polanczyk CA
    Value Health; 2011; 14(5 Suppl 1):S108-14. PubMed ID: 21839880
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Toward Explicit Prioritization for the Caribbean: An EQ-5D Value Set for Trinidad and Tobago.
    Bailey H; Stolk E; Kind P
    Value Health Reg Issues; 2016 Dec; 11():60-67. PubMed ID: 27986200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Valuation of the EQ-5D-5L with composite time trade-off for the German population - an exploratory study.
    Ludwig K; von der Schulenburg JG; Greiner W
    Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2017 Feb; 15(1):39. PubMed ID: 28219389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Valuing EQ-5D-5L health states 'in context' using a discrete choice experiment.
    Cole A; Shah K; Mulhern B; Feng Y; Devlin N
    Eur J Health Econ; 2018 May; 19(4):595-605. PubMed ID: 28569351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Estimating health state utility values from discrete choice experiments--a QALY space model approach.
    Gu Y; Norman R; Viney R
    Health Econ; 2014 Sep; 23(9):1098-114. PubMed ID: 24943827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Comparative outcomes and cost-utility following surgical treatment of focal lumbar spinal stenosis compared with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: part 2--estimated lifetime incremental cost-utility ratios.
    Rampersaud YR; Tso P; Walker KR; Lewis SJ; Davey JR; Mahomed NN; Coyte PC
    Spine J; 2014 Feb; 14(2):244-54. PubMed ID: 24239803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. The implications of using US-specific EQ-5D preference weights for cost-effectiveness evaluation.
    Noyes K; Dick AW; Holloway RG
    Med Decis Making; 2007; 27(3):327-34. PubMed ID: 17502449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Estimating a Dutch Value Set for the Pediatric Preference-Based CHU9D Using a Discrete Choice Experiment with Duration.
    Rowen D; Mulhern B; Stevens K; Vermaire JH
    Value Health; 2018 Oct; 21(10):1234-1242. PubMed ID: 30314625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Valuation of preference-based measures: can existing preference data be used to generate better estimates?
    Kharroubi SA
    Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2018 Jun; 16(1):116. PubMed ID: 29866108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Determining Cost-Effectiveness of Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Using the Short Form-6D Utility Measure.
    Elmallah RK; Chughtai M; Khlopas A; Bhowmik-Stoker M; Bozic KJ; Kurtz SM; Mont MA
    J Arthroplasty; 2017 Feb; 32(2):351-354. PubMed ID: 27665243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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