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 *

158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32524923)

  • 41. Reimbursement recommendations for cancer drugs supported by phase II evidence in Canada.
    Li YYR; Mai H; Trudeau ME; Mittmann N; Chiasson K; Chan KKW; Cheung MC
    Curr Oncol; 2020 Oct; 27(5):e495-e500. PubMed ID: 33173389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Funding linked to ongoing research: impact of the bosentan patient registry on pricing in Australia.
    Wlodarczyk J; Reid CM; Pater G
    Value Health; 2011; 14(6):961-3. PubMed ID: 21914519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. National reimbursement listing determinants of new cancer drugs: a retrospective analysis of 58 cancer treatment appraisals in 2007-2016 in South Korea.
    Kim ES; Kim JA; Lee EK
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2017 Aug; 17(4):401-409. PubMed ID: 28010146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Evaluation on the first 2 years of the positive list system in South Korea.
    Park SE; Lim SH; Choi HW; Lee SM; Kim DW; Yim EY; Kim KH; Yi SY
    Health Policy; 2012 Jan; 104(1):32-9. PubMed ID: 22001369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Health technology assessment of drugs for rare diseases: insights, trends, and reasons for negative recommendations from the CADTH common drug review.
    Janoudi G; Amegatse W; McIntosh B; Sehgal C; Richter T
    Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2016 Dec; 11(1):164. PubMed ID: 27908281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Uptake of new medicines in New Zealand: evidence of a waiting list.
    Barber JM; Sheehy KP
    N Z Med J; 2015 Apr; 128(1412):10-20. PubMed ID: 25899488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Budget impact analysis of pemetrexed introduction: case study from a teaching hospital perspective, Thailand.
    Chanjaruporn F; Roughead EE; Sooksriwong CO; Kaojarern S
    J Med Assoc Thai; 2011 Sep; 94(9):1026-34. PubMed ID: 21970190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Do different clinical evidence bases lead to discordant health-technology assessment decisions? An in-depth case series across three jurisdictions.
    Spinner DS; Birt J; Walter JW; Bowman L; Mauskopf J; Drummond MF; Copley-Merriman C
    Clinicoecon Outcomes Res; 2013; 5():69-85. PubMed ID: 23403392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Using economic evaluations to make formulary coverage decisions. So much for guidelines.
    Anis AH; Gagnon Y
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2000 Jul; 18(1):55-62. PubMed ID: 11010604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Access to new medicines in New Zealand compared to Australia.
    Wonder M; Milne R
    N Z Med J; 2011 Nov; 124(1346):12-28. PubMed ID: 22143849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. PBS medications--improving access for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
    Couzos S
    Aust Fam Physician; 2005 Oct; 34(10):841-4. PubMed ID: 16217569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. The UNESCO Bioethics Declaration 'social responsibility' principle and cost-effectiveness price evaluations for essential medicines.
    Faunce TA
    Monash Bioeth Rev; 2005 Jul; 24(3):10-9. PubMed ID: 16302317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. The Impact of Digital Therapeutics on Current Health Technology Assessment Frameworks.
    Yan K; Balijepalli C; Druyts E
    Front Digit Health; 2021; 3():667016. PubMed ID: 34713140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Early scientific advice obtained simultaneously from regulators and payers: findings from a pilot study in Australia.
    Wonder M; Backhouse ME; Hornby E
    Value Health; 2013; 16(6):1067-73. PubMed ID: 24041357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. How Sensitive is Sensitivity Analysis?: Evaluation of Pharmacoeconomic Submissions in Korea.
    Bae S; Lee J; Bae EY
    Front Pharmacol; 2022; 13():884769. PubMed ID: 35652044
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: a review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
    Hill SR; Mitchell AS; Henry DA
    JAMA; 2000 Apr; 283(16):2116-21. PubMed ID: 10791503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Tailoring access to high cost, genetically targeted drugs.
    Hall WD; Ward R; Liauw WS; Lu CY; Brien JA
    Med J Aust; 2005 Jun; 182(12):607-8. PubMed ID: 15963014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. The Australian Managed Entry Scheme: Are We Getting it Right?
    Tuffaha HW; Scuffham PA
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2018 May; 36(5):555-565. PubMed ID: 29478116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Impact of Managed Entry Agreements on availability of and timely access to medicines: an ex-post evaluation of agreements implemented for oncology therapies in four countries.
    Efthymiadou O; Kanavos P
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2022 Aug; 22(1):1066. PubMed ID: 35987627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Australian managed entry scheme: a new manageable process for the reimbursement of new medicines?
    Wonder M; Backhouse ME; Sullivan SD
    Value Health; 2012 May; 15(3):586-90. PubMed ID: 22583471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.