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 *

218 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35819121)

  • 1. Informed decision-making: Statistical methodology for surrogacy evaluation and its role in licensing and reimbursement assessments.
    Weir CJ; Taylor RS
    Pharm Stat; 2022 Jul; 21(4):740-756. PubMed ID: 35819121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Surrogate Endpoints in Health Technology Assessment: An International Review of Methodological Guidelines.
    Grigore B; Ciani O; Dams F; Federici C; de Groot S; Möllenkamp M; Rabbe S; Shatrov K; Zemplenyi A; Taylor RS
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2020 Oct; 38(10):1055-1070. PubMed ID: 32572825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Development of a framework and decision tool for the evaluation of health technologies based on surrogate endpoint evidence.
    Ciani O; Grigore B; Taylor RS
    Health Econ; 2022 Sep; 31 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):44-72. PubMed ID: 35608044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Payer Perspectives on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Health Care Decision Making: Oncology Examples.
    Brogan AP; DeMuro C; Barrett AM; D'Alessio D; Bal V; Hogue SL
    J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2017 Feb; 23(2):125-134. PubMed ID: 28125369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Methods for the comparative evaluation of pharmaceuticals.
    Zentner A; Velasco-Garrido M; Busse R
    GMS Health Technol Assess; 2005 Nov; 1():Doc09. PubMed ID: 21289930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Use of Surrogate end points in HTA.
    Mangiapane S; Velasco Garrido M
    GMS Health Technol Assess; 2009 Aug; 5():Doc12. PubMed ID: 21289899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The use of surrogate outcomes in model-based cost-effectiveness analyses: a survey of UK Health Technology Assessment reports.
    Taylor RS; Elston J
    Health Technol Assess; 2009 Jan; 13(8):iii, ix-xi, 1-50. PubMed ID: 19203465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Validity of Surrogate Endpoints and Their Impact on Coverage Recommendations: A Retrospective Analysis across International Health Technology Assessment Agencies.
    Ciani O; Grigore B; Blommestein H; de Groot S; Möllenkamp M; Rabbe S; Daubner-Bendes R; Taylor RS
    Med Decis Making; 2021 May; 41(4):439-452. PubMed ID: 33719711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Modelling approaches for histology-independent cancer drugs to inform NICE appraisals: a systematic review and decision-framework.
    Murphy P; Glynn D; Dias S; Hodgson R; Claxton L; Beresford L; Cooper K; Tappenden P; Ennis K; Grosso A; Wright K; Cantrell A; Stevenson M; Palmer S
    Health Technol Assess; 2021 Dec; 25(76):1-228. PubMed ID: 34990339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Health technology assessment for cancer medicines across the G7 countries and Oceania: an international, cross-sectional study.
    Jenei K; Raymakers AJN; Bayle A; Berger-Thürmel K; Cherla A; Honda K; Jackson CCGA; Karikios D; Trapani D; Berry S; Gyawali B
    Lancet Oncol; 2023 Jun; 24(6):624-635. PubMed ID: 37269843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Surrogacy assessment using principal stratification when surrogate and outcome measures are multivariate normal.
    Conlon AS; Taylor JM; Elliott MR
    Biostatistics; 2014 Apr; 15(2):266-83. PubMed ID: 24285772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Bridging the gap: Can International Consortium of Health Outcomes Measurement standard sets align outcomes accepted for regulatory and health technology assessment decision-making of oncology medicines.
    Kalf RRJ; Vreman RA; Delnoij DMJ; Bouvy ML; Goettsch WG
    Pharmacol Res Perspect; 2021 Apr; 9(2):e00742. PubMed ID: 33749172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Identifying and Revealing the Importance of Decision-Making Criteria for Health Technology Assessment: A Retrospective Analysis of Reimbursement Recommendations in Ireland.
    Schmitz S; McCullagh L; Adams R; Barry M; Walsh C
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2016 Sep; 34(9):925-37. PubMed ID: 27034245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The HTA Risk Analysis Chart: Visualising the Need for and Potential Value of Managed Entry Agreements in Health Technology Assessment.
    Grimm SE; Strong M; Brennan A; Wailoo AJ
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2017 Dec; 35(12):1287-1296. PubMed ID: 28849538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Informative value of Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) in Health Technology Assessment (HTA).
    Brettschneider C; Lühmann D; Raspe H
    GMS Health Technol Assess; 2011 Feb; 7():Doc01. PubMed ID: 21468289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Health technology assessment of medical devices: What is different? An overview of three European projects.
    Schnell-Inderst P; Mayer J; Lauterberg J; Hunger T; Arvandi M; Conrads-Frank A; Nachtnebel A; Wild C; Siebert U
    Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes; 2015; 109(4-5):309-18. PubMed ID: 26354131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Surrogate outcomes in health technology assessment: an international comparison.
    Velasco Garrido M; Mangiapane S
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2009 Jul; 25(3):315-22. PubMed ID: 19619350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Informed consent in medical decision-making in commercial gestational surrogacy: a mixed methods study in New Delhi, India.
    Tanderup M; Reddy S; Patel T; Nielsen BB
    Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2015 May; 94(5):465-72. PubMed ID: 25581093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: qualitative study and methodological review.
    Chilcott J; Tappenden P; Rawdin A; Johnson M; Kaltenthaler E; Paisley S; Papaioannou D; Shippam A
    Health Technol Assess; 2010 May; 14(25):iii-iv, ix-xii, 1-107. PubMed ID: 20501062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.