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 *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30231720)

  • 1. Assessing the Quality of Decision Making in the Development and Regulatory Review of Medicines: Identifying Biases and Best Practices.
    Bujar M; Donelan R; McAuslane N; Walker S; Salek S
    Ther Innov Regul Sci; 2017 Mar; 51(2):250-256. PubMed ID: 30231720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evaluating Quality of Decision-Making Processes in Medicines' Development, Regulatory Review, and Health Technology Assessment: A Systematic Review of the Literature.
    Bujar M; McAuslane N; Walker SR; Salek S
    Front Pharmacol; 2017; 8():189. PubMed ID: 28443022
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A Process for Evaluating Quality Decision-Making Practices During the Development, Review and Reimbursement of Medicines.
    Bujar M; McAuslane N; Walker S; Salek S
    Int J Health Policy Manag; 2022 Feb; 11(2):128-137. PubMed ID: 32610811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The Development and Validation of a Generic Instrument, QoDoS, for Assessing the Quality of Decision Making.
    Donelan R; Walker S; Salek S
    Front Pharmacol; 2016; 7():180. PubMed ID: 27468267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Quality of Regulatory Decision-Making Practices: Issues Facing Companies and Agencies.
    Bujar M; McAuslane N; Salek S; Walker S
    Ther Innov Regul Sci; 2016 Jul; 50(4):487-495. PubMed ID: 30227024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The Reliability and Relevance of a Quality of Decision Making Instrument, Quality of Decision-Making Orientation Scheme (QoDoS), for Use During the Lifecycle of Medicines.
    Bujar M; McAuslane N; Walker S; Salek S
    Front Pharmacol; 2019; 10():17. PubMed ID: 30728777
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Quality Decision Making in Health Technology Assessment: Issues Facing Companies and Agencies.
    Bujar M; McAuslane N; Walker SR; Salek S
    Ther Innov Regul Sci; 2020 Mar; 54(2):275-282. PubMed ID: 32072598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Regulatory review: How do agencies ensure the quality of decision making?
    Liberti L; McAuslane N; Patel P; Breckenridge A; Eichler HG; Peterson R
    Clin Pharmacol Ther; 2013 Sep; 94(3):305-8. PubMed ID: 23963218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Quality Decision-Making Practices in Pharmaceutical Companies and Regulatory Authorities: Current and Proposed Approaches to Its Documentation.
    Bujar M; McAuslane N; Connelly P; Walker SR
    Ther Innov Regul Sci; 2020 Nov; 54(6):1404-1415. PubMed ID: 32472442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Factors influencing quality decision-making: regulatory and pharmaceutical industry perspectives.
    Donelan R; Walker S; Salek S
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2015 Mar; 24(3):319-28. PubMed ID: 25628072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of the Regulatory Review Process in Zimbabwe: Challenges and Opportunities.
    Sithole T; Mahlangu G; Salek S; Walker S
    Ther Innov Regul Sci; 2021 May; 55(3):474-489. PubMed ID: 33387356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Risk management frameworks for human health and environmental risks.
    Jardine C; Hrudey S; Shortreed J; Craig L; Krewski D; Furgal C; McColl S
    J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev; 2003; 6(6):569-720. PubMed ID: 14698953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The patient experience of patient-centered communication with nurses in the hospital setting: a qualitative systematic review protocol.
    Newell S; Jordan Z
    JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2015 Jan; 13(1):76-87. PubMed ID: 26447009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Is there a need for a universal benefit-risk assessment framework for medicines? Regulatory and industry perspectives.
    Leong J; McAuslane N; Walker S; Salek S
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2013 Sep; 22(9):1004-12. PubMed ID: 23740622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The ISPOR Good Practices for Quality Improvement of Cost-Effectiveness Research Task Force Report.
    McGhan WF; Al M; Doshi JA; Kamae I; Marx SE; Rindress D
    Value Health; 2009; 12(8):1086-99. PubMed ID: 19744291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Strengthening and rationalizing pharmacovigilance in the EU: where is Europe heading to? A review of the new EU legislation on pharmacovigilance.
    Borg JJ; Aislaitner G; Pirozynski M; Mifsud S
    Drug Saf; 2011 Mar; 34(3):187-97. PubMed ID: 21332243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany].
    Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
    Dtsch Med Wochenschr; 2008 Dec; 133 Suppl 7():S225-46. PubMed ID: 19034813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.
    Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
    Eur J Health Econ; 2008 Nov; 9 Suppl 1():5-29. PubMed ID: 18987905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The Turkish Medicines and Medical Devices Agency: Comparison of Its Registration Process with Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore.
    Mashaki Ceyhan E; Gürsöz H; Alkan A; Coşkun H; Koyuncu O; Walker S
    Front Pharmacol; 2018; 9():9. PubMed ID: 29422861
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Characterizing Good Review Practices: A Survey Report Among Agencies of APEC Member Economies.
    Liu LL; McAuslane N; Tzou MC; Chern HD; Liberti L; Ward M; Kang JJ
    Ther Innov Regul Sci; 2013 Nov; 47(6):678-683. PubMed ID: 30235555
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.