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 *

166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35784205)

  • 1. Influencing Factors of Health Technology Assessment to Orphan Drugs: Empirical Evidence in England, Scotland, Canada, and Australia.
    Zhou N; Ji H; Li Z; Hu J; Xie JH; Feng YH; Yuan N
    Front Public Health; 2022; 10():861067. PubMed ID: 35784205
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Commonalities and differences in HTA outcomes: a comparative analysis of five countries and implications for coverage decisions.
    Nicod E; Kanavos P
    Health Policy; 2012 Dec; 108(2-3):167-77. PubMed ID: 23088802
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Case Studies: Factors Influencing Divergent HTA Reimbursement Recommendations in Australia, Canada, England, and Scotland.
    Allen N; Walker SR; Liberti L; Salek S
    Value Health; 2017 Mar; 20(3):320-328. PubMed ID: 28292476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four European countries.
    Nicod E
    Eur J Health Econ; 2017 Jul; 18(6):715-730. PubMed ID: 27538758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Common drug review recommendations for orphan drugs in Canada: basis of recommendations and comparison with similar reviews in Quebec, Australia, Scotland and New Zealand.
    McCormick JI; Berescu LD; Tadros N
    Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2018 Jan; 13(1):27. PubMed ID: 29382371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Determinants of Managed Entry Agreements in the context of Health Technology Assessment: a comparative analysis of oncology therapies in four countries.
    Efthymiadou O; Kanavos P
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2021 Jan; 37():e31. PubMed ID: 33509311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Developing an evidence-based methodological framework to systematically compare HTA coverage decisions: A mixed methods study.
    Nicod E; Kanavos P
    Health Policy; 2016 Jan; 120(1):35-45. PubMed ID: 26723201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Market access for medicines treating rare diseases: Association between specialised processes for orphan medicines and funding recommendations.
    Fontrier AM
    Soc Sci Med; 2022 Aug; 306():115119. PubMed ID: 35700552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Authorization and reimbursement of orphan drugs in an international comparison].
    Roll K; Stargardt T; Schreyögg J
    Gesundheitswesen; 2011 Aug; 73(8-9):504-14. PubMed ID: 20848380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Dealing with Uncertainty and Accounting for Social Value Judgments in Assessments of Orphan Drugs: Evidence from Four European Countries.
    Nicod E; Berg Brigham K; Durand-Zaleski I; Kanavos P
    Value Health; 2017; 20(7):919-926. PubMed ID: 28712621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. HTA decision-making for drugs for rare diseases: comparison of processes across countries.
    Stafinski T; Glennie J; Young A; Menon D
    Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2022 Jul; 17(1):258. PubMed ID: 35804398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Systematic review on the evaluation criteria of orphan medicines in Central and Eastern European countries.
    Zelei T; Molnár MJ; Szegedi M; Kaló Z
    Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2016 Jun; 11(1):72. PubMed ID: 27259284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Do Reimbursement Recommendations by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health Translate Into Coverage Decisions for Orphan Drugs in the Canadian Province of Ontario?
    Fontrier AM; Kanavos P
    Value Health; 2023 Jul; 26(7):1011-1021. PubMed ID: 36889379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. SCIENTIFIC AND SOCIAL VALUE JUDGMENTS FOR ORPHAN DRUGS IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT.
    Nicod E; Kanavos P
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2016 Jan; 32(4):218-232. PubMed ID: 27624559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. HTA programme response to the challenges of dealing with orphan medicinal products: Process evaluation in selected European countries.
    Nicod E; Annemans L; Bucsics A; Lee A; Upadhyaya S; Facey K
    Health Policy; 2019 Feb; 123(2):140-151. PubMed ID: 28400128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Value assessment of disease-modifying therapies for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: HTA evidence from seven OECD countries.
    Visintin E; Tinelli M; Kanavos P
    Health Policy; 2019 Feb; 123(2):118-129. PubMed ID: 30227974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. An impact analysis of the implementation of health technology assessment for new treatment of orphan diseases in Japan.
    Kogushi K; Ogawa T; Ikeda S
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2020 Oct; 20(5):455-471. PubMed ID: 31496361
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The correlation between HTA recommendations and reimbursement status of orphan drugs in Europe.
    Kawalec P; Sagan A; Pilc A
    Orphanet J Rare Dis; 2016 Sep; 11(1):122. PubMed ID: 27600717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Value and Price of Multi-indication Cancer Drugs in the USA, Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and Scotland.
    Michaeli DT; Mills M; Kanavos P
    Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2022 Sep; 20(5):757-768. PubMed ID: 35821360
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.