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 *

127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36543249)

  • 41. How Data Packages Lacking Phase III Pivotal Trial Data Can Support Regulatory Approval and Reimbursement for Oncologics in Australia.
    Macaulay R; Siddiqui MK; Stoddart S
    Value Health Reg Issues; 2015 May; 6():143-149. PubMed ID: 29698188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. The Australian Managed Entry Scheme: Are We Getting it Right?
    Tuffaha HW; Scuffham PA
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2018 May; 36(5):555-565. PubMed ID: 29478116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Acceptance of health technology assessment submissions with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios above the cost-effectiveness threshold.
    Griffiths EA; Hendrich JK; Stoddart SD; Walsh SC
    Clinicoecon Outcomes Res; 2015; 7():463-76. PubMed ID: 26366099
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Reimbursement recommendations for cancer drugs supported by phase II evidence in Canada.
    Li YYR; Mai H; Trudeau ME; Mittmann N; Chiasson K; Chan KKW; Cheung MC
    Curr Oncol; 2020 Oct; 27(5):e495-e500. PubMed ID: 33173389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Assessing the safety and cost-effectiveness of early nanodrugs.
    Vines T; Faunce T
    J Law Med; 2009 May; 16(5):822-45. PubMed ID: 19554862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Budget impact analysis of pemetrexed introduction: case study from a teaching hospital perspective, Thailand.
    Chanjaruporn F; Roughead EE; Sooksriwong CO; Kaojarern S
    J Med Assoc Thai; 2011 Sep; 94(9):1026-34. PubMed ID: 21970190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. 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]  

  • 48. Decision-makers' preferences for approving new medicines in Wales: a discrete-choice experiment with assessment of external validity.
    Linley WG; Hughes DA
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2013 Apr; 31(4):345-55. PubMed ID: 23516033
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Varying results of early benefit assessment of newly approved pharmaceutical drugs in Germany from 2011 to 2017: A study based on federal joint committee data.
    Peinemann F; Labeit A
    J Evid Based Med; 2019 Feb; 12(1):9-15. PubMed ID: 30701688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: a review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
    Hill SR; Mitchell AS; Henry DA
    JAMA; 2000 Apr; 283(16):2116-21. PubMed ID: 10791503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Common Drug Review recommendations: an evidence base for expectations?
    Rocchi A; Miller E; Hopkins RB; Goeree R
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2012 Mar; 30(3):229-46. PubMed ID: 22283689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. "There are ways … drug companies will get into DTC decisions": How Australian drug and therapeutics committees address pharmaceutical industry influence.
    Parker L; Bennett A; Mintzes B; Grundy Q; Fabbri A; Karanges EA; Bero L
    Br J Clin Pharmacol; 2021 May; 87(5):2341-2353. PubMed ID: 33129226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Review of a decision by the Medical Services Advisory Committee based on health technology assessment of an emerging technology: the case for remotely assisted radical prostatectomy.
    O'Malley SP; Jordan E
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2007; 23(2):286-91. PubMed ID: 17493316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Botulinum toxin type A in the management of equinus in children with cerebral palsy: an evidence-based economic evaluation.
    Houltram J; Noble I; Boyd RN; Corry I; Flett P; Graham HK
    Eur J Neurol; 2001 Nov; 8 Suppl 5():194-202. PubMed ID: 11851748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. National reimbursement listing determinants of new cancer drugs: a retrospective analysis of 58 cancer treatment appraisals in 2007-2016 in South Korea.
    Kim ES; Kim JA; Lee EK
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2017 Aug; 17(4):401-409. PubMed ID: 28010146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. The role of pharmacoeconomic guidelines for formulary approval: the Australian experience.
    Langley PC
    Clin Ther; 1993; 15(6):1154-76; discussion 1120. PubMed ID: 8111812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Factors associated with success of market authorisation applications for pharmaceutical drugs submitted to the European Medicines Agency.
    Regnstrom J; Koenig F; Aronsson B; Reimer T; Svendsen K; Tsigkos S; Flamion B; Eichler HG; Vamvakas S
    Eur J Clin Pharmacol; 2010 Jan; 66(1):39-48. PubMed ID: 19936724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Evaluation of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Submitted for Reimbursement Recommendation Decisions in Canada.
    Meyers DE; Jenei K; Chisamore TM; Gyawali B
    JAMA Intern Med; 2021 Apr; 181(4):499-508. PubMed ID: 33616606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. How Sensitive is Sensitivity Analysis?: Evaluation of Pharmacoeconomic Submissions in Korea.
    Bae S; Lee J; Bae EY
    Front Pharmacol; 2022; 13():884769. PubMed ID: 35652044
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. [Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals in Korea].
    Bae EY
    J Prev Med Public Health; 2008 Mar; 41(2):80-3. PubMed ID: 18385547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.