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 *

200 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31708070)

  • 1. What Is Next for Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment? A Systematic Review of the Challenges.
    Huls SPI; Whichello CL; van Exel J; Uyl-de Groot CA; de Bekker-Grob EW
    Value Health; 2019 Nov; 22(11):1318-1328. PubMed ID: 31708070
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment.
    Hofmann B
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2005; 21(3):312-8. PubMed ID: 16110710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art.
    Oliveira MD; Mataloto I; Kanavos P
    Eur J Health Econ; 2019 Aug; 20(6):891-918. PubMed ID: 31006056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Methodological guidance documents for evaluation of ethical considerations in health technology assessment: a systematic review.
    Assasi N; Schwartz L; Tarride JE; Campbell K; Goeree R
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2014 Apr; 14(2):203-20. PubMed ID: 24625039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Use of Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment: Perspectives of Canadian, Belgian and German HTA Representatives.
    van Overbeeke E; Forrester V; Simoens S; Huys I
    Patient; 2021 Jan; 14(1):119-128. PubMed ID: 32856278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Basics of health technology assessment.
    O'Reilly D; Campbell K; Goeree R;
    Methods Mol Biol; 2009; 473():263-83. PubMed ID: 19160744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. TAKING PATIENT HETEROGENEITY AND PREFERENCES INTO ACCOUNT IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS.
    Kievit W; Tummers M; van Hoorn R; Booth A; Mozygemba K; Refolo P; Sacchini D; Pfadenhauer L; Gerhardus A; Van der Wilt GJ
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2017 Jan; 33(5):562-569. PubMed ID: 29065947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. ETHICS IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW.
    Bellemare CA; Dagenais P; K-Bédard S; Béland JP; Bernier L; Daniel CÉ; Gagnon H; Legault GA; Parent M; Patenaude J
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2018 Jan; 34(5):447-457. PubMed ID: 30296950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Public preferences for engagement in Health Technology Assessment decision-making: protocol of a mixed methods study.
    Wortley S; Tong A; Lancsar E; Salkeld G; Howard K
    BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2015 Jul; 15():52. PubMed ID: 26166149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Health technology assessment of medical devices: What is different? An overview of three European projects.
    Schnell-Inderst P; Mayer J; Lauterberg J; Hunger T; Arvandi M; Conrads-Frank A; Nachtnebel A; Wild C; Siebert U
    Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes; 2015; 109(4-5):309-18. PubMed ID: 26354131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Quantitative patient preference evidence for health technology assessment: a case study.
    Brooker AS; Carcone S; Witteman W; Krahn M
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2013 Jul; 29(3):290-300. PubMed ID: 23863189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Health Technology Assessment and Its Use in Drug Policies in China.
    Zhen X; Sun X; Dong H
    Value Health Reg Issues; 2018 May; 15():138-148. PubMed ID: 29729645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Improving the quality of discrete-choice experiments in health: how can we assess validity and reliability?
    Janssen EM; Marshall DA; Hauber AB; Bridges JFP
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2017 Dec; 17(6):531-542. PubMed ID: 29058478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Health technology assessment of medical devices: a survey of non-European union agencies.
    Ciani O; Wilcher B; Blankart CR; Hatz M; Rupel VP; Erker RS; Varabyova Y; Taylor RS
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2015 Jan; 31(3):154-65. PubMed ID: 26044729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [How can the impact of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) in the Austrian healthcare system be assessed? Design of a conceptual framework].
    Schumacher I; Zechmeister I
    Gesundheitswesen; 2012 Apr; 74(4):257-65. PubMed ID: 21267815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.