BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

163 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34882431)

  • 1. Health-Related Quality of Life Measurement in Public Health.
    Kaplan RM; Hays RD
    Annu Rev Public Health; 2022 Apr; 43():355-373. PubMed ID: 34882431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A review of preference-based health-related quality of life questionnaires in spinal cord injury research.
    Whitehurst DG; Noonan VK; Dvorak MF; Bryan S
    Spinal Cord; 2012 Sep; 50(9):646-54. PubMed ID: 22641255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system by its association with social determinants of health.
    Hanmer J
    Qual Life Res; 2021 Mar; 30(3):881-889. PubMed ID: 33161483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Utilities Estimated from PROMIS Scales for Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in Stroke.
    Thompson NR; Lapin BR; Katzan IL
    Med Decis Making; 2023 Aug; 43(6):704-718. PubMed ID: 37401739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A review of the psychometric properties of generic utility measures in multiple sclerosis.
    Kuspinar A; Mayo NE
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2014 Aug; 32(8):759-73. PubMed ID: 24846760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Association between Food Insecurity and Health-Related Quality of Life: a Nationally Representative Survey.
    Hanmer J; DeWalt DA; Berkowitz SA
    J Gen Intern Med; 2021 Jun; 36(6):1638-1647. PubMed ID: 33409885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke.
    Pickard AS; Johnson JA; Feeny DH
    Qual Life Res; 2005 Feb; 14(1):207-19. PubMed ID: 15789955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Preference-based health-related quality-of-life outcomes in children with autism spectrum disorders: a comparison of generic instruments.
    Tilford JM; Payakachat N; Kovacs E; Pyne JM; Brouwer W; Nick TG; Bellando J; Kuhlthau KA
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2012 Aug; 30(8):661-79. PubMed ID: 22788258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Effects of mode and order of administration on generic health-related quality of life scores.
    Hays RD; Kim S; Spritzer KL; Kaplan RM; Tally S; Feeny D; Liu H; Fryback DG
    Value Health; 2009 Sep; 12(6):1035-9. PubMed ID: 19473334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Relationship Between the Wisconsin Stone Quality of Life (WISQOL) and Preference-Based/Health Utility Measures of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in Kidney Stone Patients.
    Polotti C; Tan B; Borglum N; Olweny EO
    Urology; 2020 Jul; 141():33-38. PubMed ID: 32305539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. An Updated Systematic Review of Studies Mapping (or Cross-Walking) Measures of Health-Related Quality of Life to Generic Preference-Based Measures to Generate Utility Values.
    Mukuria C; Rowen D; Harnan S; Rawdin A; Wong R; Ara R; Brazier J
    Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2019 Jun; 17(3):295-313. PubMed ID: 30945127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Use of quality-adjusted life years for the estimation of effectiveness of health care: A systematic literature review.
    Räsänen P; Roine E; Sintonen H; Semberg-Konttinen V; Ryynänen OP; Roine R
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2006; 22(2):235-41. PubMed ID: 16571199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparing and transforming PROMIS utility values to the EQ-5D.
    Hartman JD; Craig BM
    Qual Life Res; 2018 Mar; 27(3):725-733. PubMed ID: 29264776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Longitudinal association of preference-weighted health-related quality of life measures and substance use disorder outcomes.
    Pyne JM; Tripathi S; French M; McCollister K; Rapp RC; Booth BM
    Addiction; 2011 Mar; 106(3):507-15. PubMed ID: 21205046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures.
    Brazier J; Connell J; Papaioannou D; Mukuria C; Mulhern B; Peasgood T; Jones ML; Paisley S; O'Cathain A; Barkham M; Knapp M; Byford S; Gilbody S; Parry G
    Health Technol Assess; 2014 May; 18(34):vii-viii, xiii-xxv, 1-188. PubMed ID: 24857402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparing the Performance of 2 Health Utility Measures in the Medicare Health Outcome Survey (HOS).
    Jia H; Lubetkin EI; DeMichele K; Stark DS; Zack MM; Thompson WW
    Med Decis Making; 2018 Nov; 38(8):983-993. PubMed ID: 30403580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Catalog and comparison of societal preferences (utilities) for lung cancer health states: results from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) study.
    Tramontano AC; Schrag DL; Malin JK; Miller MC; Weeks JC; Swan JS; McMahon PM
    Med Decis Making; 2015 Apr; 35(3):371-87. PubMed ID: 25670839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Patient and public preferences for health states associated with AMD.
    Butt T; Dunbar HM; Morris S; Orr S; Rubin GS
    Optom Vis Sci; 2013 Aug; 90(8):855-60. PubMed ID: 23811607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Accounts from developers of generic health state utility instruments explain why they produce different QALYs: A qualitative study.
    Pickles K; Lancsar E; Seymour J; Parkin D; Donaldson C; Carter SM
    Soc Sci Med; 2019 Nov; 240():112560. PubMed ID: 31563007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content, and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D multiattribute utility instruments.
    Richardson J; Khan MA; Iezzi A; Maxwell A
    Med Decis Making; 2015 Apr; 35(3):276-91. PubMed ID: 25159172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.