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 *

166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30929257)

  • 1. Quantifying Preferences in Drug Benefit-Risk Decisions.
    Tervonen T; Angelis A; Hockley K; Pignatti F; Phillips LD
    Clin Pharmacol Ther; 2019 Nov; 106(5):955-959. PubMed ID: 30929257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Health Preference Research in Europe: A Review of Its Use in Marketing Authorization, Reimbursement, and Pricing Decisions-Report of the ISPOR Stated Preference Research Special Interest Group.
    Marsh K; van Til JA; Molsen-David E; Juhnke C; Hawken N; Oehrlein EM; Choi YC; Duenas A; Greiner W; Haas K; Hiligsmann M; Hockley KS; Ivlev I; Liu F; Ostermann J; Poder T; Poon JL; Muehlbacher A
    Value Health; 2020 Jul; 23(7):831-841. PubMed ID: 32762984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The evolving role of patient preference studies in health-care decision-making, from clinical drug development to clinical care management.
    Jackson Y; Janssen E; Fischer R; Beaverson K; Loftus J; Betteridge K; Rhoten S; Flood E; Lundie M
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2019 Aug; 19(4):383-396. PubMed ID: 31070048
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Opportunities and challenges for the inclusion of patient preferences in the medical product life cycle: a systematic review.
    Janssens R; Huys I; van Overbeeke E; Whichello C; Harding S; Kübler J; Juhaeri J; Ciaglia A; Simoens S; Stevens H; Smith M; Levitan B; Cleemput I; de Bekker-Grob E; Veldwijk J
    BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2019 Oct; 19(1):189. PubMed ID: 31585538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Whose preferences should be elicited for use in health-care decision-making? A case study using anticoagulant therapy.
    Mott DJ; Najafzadeh M
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2016; 16(1):33-9. PubMed ID: 26560704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Patient-centric HTA: different strokes for different folks.
    Mühlbacher AC
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2015; 15(4):591-7. PubMed ID: 25896756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Patient-Focused Benefit-Risk Analysis to Inform Regulatory Decisions: The European Union Perspective.
    Mühlbacher AC; Juhnke C; Beyer AR; Garner S
    Value Health; 2016; 19(6):734-740. PubMed ID: 27712699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Confirmatory versus explorative endpoint analysis: Decision-making on the basis of evidence available from market authorization and early benefit assessment for oncology drugs.
    Niehaus I; Dintsios CM
    Health Policy; 2018 Jun; 122(6):599-606. PubMed ID: 29605527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Patient Preferences in the Medical Product Life Cycle: What do Stakeholders Think? Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews in Europe and the USA.
    Janssens R; Russo S; van Overbeeke E; Whichello C; Harding S; Kübler J; Juhaeri J; Bywall KS; Comanescu A; Hueber A; Englbrecht M; Nikolenko N; Pravettoni G; Simoens S; Stevens H; Hermann R; Levitan B; Cleemput I; de Bekker-Grob E; Veldwijk J; Huys I
    Patient; 2019 Oct; 12(5):513-526. PubMed ID: 31222436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Does conditional approval for new oncology drugs in Europe lead to differences in health technology assessment decisions?
    Lipska I; Hoekman J; McAuslane N; Leufkens HG; Hövels AM
    Clin Pharmacol Ther; 2015 Nov; 98(5):489-91. PubMed ID: 26250656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Health Technology Agency insights: informing modification of a qualitative benefit risk framework for Health Technology Reassessment of prescription medications.
    Maloney MA; Schwartz L; O'Reilly D; Levine M
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2019; 35(5):384-392. PubMed ID: 31524113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Design, Conduct, and Use of Patient Preference Studies in the Medical Product Life Cycle: A Multi-Method Study.
    van Overbeeke E; Janssens R; Whichello C; Schölin Bywall K; Sharpe J; Nikolenko N; Phillips BS; Guiddi P; Pravettoni G; Vergani L; Marton G; Cleemput I; Simoens S; Kübler J; Juhaeri J; Levitan B; de Bekker-Grob EW; Veldwijk J; Huys I
    Front Pharmacol; 2019; 10():1395. PubMed ID: 31849657
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Involving patients, the insured and the general public in healthcare decision making].
    Mühlbacher AC; Juhnke C
    Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes; 2016; 110-111():36-44. PubMed ID: 26875034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four European countries.
    Nicod E
    Eur J Health Econ; 2017 Jul; 18(6):715-730. PubMed ID: 27538758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Patient centered decision making: use of conjoint analysis to determine risk-benefit trade-offs for preference sensitive treatment choices.
    Wilson L; Loucks A; Bui C; Gipson G; Zhong L; Schwartzburg A; Crabtree E; Goodin D; Waubant E; McCulloch C
    J Neurol Sci; 2014 Sep; 344(1-2):80-7. PubMed ID: 25037284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Case Studies: Factors Influencing Divergent HTA Reimbursement Recommendations in Australia, Canada, England, and Scotland.
    Allen N; Walker SR; Liberti L; Salek S
    Value Health; 2017 Mar; 20(3):320-328. PubMed ID: 28292476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Presenting evidence and summary measures to best inform societal decisions when comparing multiple strategies.
    Eckermann S; Willan AR
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2011 Jul; 29(7):563-77. PubMed ID: 21671686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Integrating patients' views into health technology assessment: Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a method to elicit patient preferences.
    Danner M; Hummel JM; Volz F; van Manen JG; Wiegard B; Dintsios CM; Bastian H; Gerber A; Ijzerman MJ
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2011 Oct; 27(4):369-75. PubMed ID: 22004779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. PATIENT-CENTERED DECISION MAKING: LESSONS FROM MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS FOR QUANTIFYING PATIENT PREFERENCES.
    Marsh K; Caro JJ; Zaiser E; Heywood J; Hamed A
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2018 Jan; 34(1):105-110. PubMed ID: 29277175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.