294 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33950476)
21. Patient choice in colorectal cancer treatment - A systematic review and narrative synthesis of attribute-based stated preference studies.
Kowal M; Douglas F; Jayne D; Meads D
Colorectal Dis; 2022 Nov; 24(11):1295-1307. PubMed ID: 35776854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. A systematic review of evidence on malignant spinal metastases: natural history and technologies for identifying patients at high risk of vertebral fracture and spinal cord compression.
Sutcliffe P; Connock M; Shyangdan D; Court R; Kandala NB; Clarke A
Health Technol Assess; 2013 Sep; 17(42):1-274. PubMed ID: 24070110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Methods to Summarize Discrete-Choice Experiments in a Systematic Review: A Scoping Review.
Choudhary D; Thomas M; Pacheco-Barrios K; Zhang Y; Alonso-Coello P; Schünemann H; Hazlewood G
Patient; 2022 Nov; 15(6):629-639. PubMed ID: 35829927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Patient preferences for epilepsy treatment: a systematic review of discrete choice experimental studies.
Al-Aqeel S; Alotaiwi R; Albugami B
Health Econ Rev; 2023 Mar; 13(1):17. PubMed ID: 36933108
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Patients' preferences for the treatment of anxiety and depressive disorders: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments.
Tünneßen M; Hiligsmann M; Stock S; Vennedey V
J Med Econ; 2020 Jun; 23(6):546-556. PubMed ID: 32011209
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials.
Allen EN; Chandler CI; Mandimika N; Leisegang C; Barnes K
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2018 Jan; 1(1):MR000039. PubMed ID: 29372930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. How has the impact of 'care pathway technologies' on service integration in stroke care been measured and what is the strength of the evidence to support their effectiveness in this respect?
Allen D; Rixson L
Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2008 Mar; 6(1):78-110. PubMed ID: 21631815
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery for gynecologic and urologic oncology: an evidence-based analysis.
Medical Advisory Secretariat
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser; 2010; 10(27):1-118. PubMed ID: 23074405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Does the inclusion of a cost attribute result in different preferences for the surgical treatment of primary basal cell carcinoma?: a comparison of two discrete-choice experiments.
Essers BA; van Helvoort-Postulart D; Prins MH; Neumann M; Dirksen CD
Pharmacoeconomics; 2010; 28(6):507-20. PubMed ID: 20387912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.
Hall R; Medina-Lara A; Hamilton W; Spencer AE
Patient; 2022 May; 15(3):269-285. PubMed ID: 34671946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. The application of discrete choice experiments eliciting young peoples' preferences for healthcare: a systematic literature review.
Williams G; Kinchin I
Eur J Health Econ; 2023 Aug; 24(6):987-998. PubMed ID: 36169764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Systematic screening and assessment of psychosocial well-being and care needs of people with cancer.
Schouten B; Avau B; Bekkering GTE; Vankrunkelsven P; Mebis J; Hellings J; Van Hecke A
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2019 Mar; 3(3):CD012387. PubMed ID: 30909317
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Analysis of physicians' perspectives versus patients' preferences: direct assessment and discrete choice experiments in the therapy of multiple myeloma.
Mühlbacher AC; Nübling M
Eur J Health Econ; 2011 Jun; 12(3):193-203. PubMed ID: 20107856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Do patients and health care providers have discordant preferences about which aspects of treatments matter most? Evidence from a systematic review of discrete choice experiments.
Harrison M; Milbers K; Hudson M; Bansback N
BMJ Open; 2017 May; 7(5):e014719. PubMed ID: 28515194
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence: the ESTER systematic review and economic evaluation.
Brazzelli M; Javanbakht M; Imamura M; Hudson J; Moloney E; Becker F; Wallace S; Omar MI; Shimonovich M; MacLennan G; Ternent L; Vale L; Montgomery I; Mackie P; Saraswat L; Monga A; Craig D
Health Technol Assess; 2019 Mar; 23(14):1-306. PubMed ID: 30929658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Are Efficient Designs Used in Discrete Choice Experiments Too Difficult for Some Respondents? A Case Study Eliciting Preferences for End-of-Life Care.
Flynn TN; Bilger M; Malhotra C; Finkelstein EA
Pharmacoeconomics; 2016 Mar; 34(3):273-84. PubMed ID: 26589411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Assessing couples' preferences for fresh or frozen embryo transfer: a discrete choice experiment.
Abdulrahim B; Scotland G; Bhattacharya S; Maheshwari A
Hum Reprod; 2021 Oct; 36(11):2891-2903. PubMed ID: 34550368
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The Effectiveness of Integrated Care Pathways for Adults and Children in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.
Allen D; Gillen E; Rixson L
JBI Libr Syst Rev; 2009; 7(3):80-129. PubMed ID: 27820426
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
