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.
201 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33429153)
1. Health Technology Assessment in Australia: The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and Medical Services Advisory Committee. Kim H; Byrnes J; Goodall S; Value Health Reg Issues; 2021 May; 24():6-11. PubMed ID: 33429153 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Health technology assessment in Australia: a role for clinical registries? Scott AM Aust Health Rev; 2017 Mar; 41(1):19-25. PubMed ID: 27028134 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Appraisals by Health Technology Assessment Agencies of Economic Evaluations Submitted as Part of Reimbursement Dossiers for Oncology Treatments: Evidence from Canada, the UK, and Australia. Ball G; Levine MAH; Thabane L; Tarride JE Curr Oncol; 2022 Oct; 29(10):7624-7636. PubMed ID: 36290879 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Are cancer drugs less likely to be recommended for listing by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia? Chim L; Kelly PJ; Salkeld G; Stockler MR Pharmacoeconomics; 2010; 28(6):463-75. PubMed ID: 20465315 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Justifying the source of external comparators in single-arm oncology health technology submissions: a review of NICE and PBAC assessments. Appiah K; Rizzo M; Sarri G; Hernandez L J Comp Eff Res; 2024 Feb; 13(2):e230140. PubMed ID: 38174576 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. QUALITY OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT REPORTS PREPARED FOR THE MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Hua M; Boonstra T; Kelly PJ; Wilson A; Craig JC; Webster AC Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2016 Jan; 32(4):315-323. PubMed ID: 27691988 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. International comparison of comparative effectiveness research in five jurisdictions: insights for the US. Levy AR; Mitton C; Johnston KM; Harrigan B; Briggs AH Pharmacoeconomics; 2010; 28(10):813-30. PubMed ID: 20831289 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS IN AUSTRALIA. Turkstra E; Bettington E; Donohue ML; Mervin MC Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2017 Jan; 33(4):521-528. PubMed ID: 28703092 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Making recommendations to subsidize new health technologies in Australia: A qualitative study of decision-makers' perspectives on committee processes. Sellars M; Carter SM; Lancsar E; Howard K; Coast J Health Policy; 2024 Jan; 139():104963. PubMed ID: 38104371 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Assessment of the Quality of the Clinical Evidence in Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: Fit for Purpose? Wonder M; Dunlop S Value Health; 2015 Jun; 18(4):467-76. PubMed ID: 26091601 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Horizon scanning of new and emerging medical technology in Australia: its relevance to Medical Services Advisory Committee health technology assessments and public funding. O'Malley SP; Jordan E Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2009 Jul; 25(3):374-82. PubMed ID: 19619357 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Are Australians able to access new medicines on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme in a more or less timely manner? An analysis of pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee recommendations, 1999-2003. Wonder MJ; Neville AM; Parsons R Value Health; 2006; 9(4):205-12. PubMed ID: 16903989 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. An evaluation of methods used in health technology assessments produced for the Medical Services Advisory Committee. Petherick ES; Villanueva EV; Dumville J; Bryan EJ; Dharmage S Med J Aust; 2007 Sep; 187(5):289-92. PubMed ID: 17767435 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Factors associated with Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee decisions for listing medicines for diabetes and its associated complications. Haque MM; Gumbie M; Gu M; Dissanayake G Aust Health Rev; 2023 Apr; 47(2):139-147. PubMed ID: 36543249 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Towards a Transparent, Credible, Evidence-Based Decision-Making Process of New Drug Listing on the Hong Kong Hospital Authority Drug Formulary: Challenges and Suggestions. Wong CKH; Wu O; Cheung BMY Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2018 Feb; 16(1):5-14. PubMed ID: 28702874 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Analysis of PBAC submissions and outcomes for medicines (2010-2018). Lybrand S; Wonder M Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2020 Jun; 36(3):224-231. PubMed ID: 32524923 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Key considerations in reimbursement decision-making for multiple sclerosis drugs in Australia. Phan YHL; De Abreu Lourenco R; Haas M; van der Linden N Mult Scler Relat Disord; 2018 Oct; 25():144-149. PubMed ID: 30077086 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Health benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals: An international comparison of decisions from Germany, England, Scotland and Australia. Fischer KE; Heisser T; Stargardt T Health Policy; 2016 Oct; 120(10):1115-1122. PubMed ID: 27628196 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A successful practical application of Coverage with Evidence Development in Australia: Medical Services Advisory Committee interim funding and the PillCam Capsule Endoscopy Register. O'Malley SP; Selby WS; Jordan E Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2009 Jul; 25(3):290-6. PubMed ID: 19619347 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]