BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

200 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37948035)

  • 1. Exploratory Approach to Incorporating Carbon Footprint in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Modelling: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Health Interventions in the United Kingdom.
    Kindred M; Shabrina Z; Zakiyah N
    Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2024 Jan; 22(1):49-60. PubMed ID: 37948035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of second- and third-generation left ventricular assist devices as either bridge to transplant or alternative to transplant for adults eligible for heart transplantation: systematic review and cost-effectiveness model.
    Sutcliffe P; Connock M; Pulikottil-Jacob R; Kandala NB; Suri G; Gurung T; Grove A; Shyangdan D; Briscoe S; Maheswaran H; Clarke A
    Health Technol Assess; 2013 Nov; 17(53):1-499, v-vi. PubMed ID: 24280231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Once-Weekly Subcutaneous Semaglutide 2.4 mg Injection is Cost-Effective for Weight Management in the United Kingdom.
    Sandhu H; Xu W; Olivieri AV; Lübker C; Smith I; Antavalis V
    Adv Ther; 2023 Mar; 40(3):1282-1291. PubMed ID: 36630047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The Arthroplasty Candidacy Help Engine tool to select candidates for hip and knee replacement surgery: development and economic modelling.
    Price A; Smith J; Dakin H; Kang S; Eibich P; Cook J; Gray A; Harris K; Middleton R; Gibbons E; Benedetto E; Smith S; Dawson J; Fitzpatrick R; Sayers A; Miller L; Marques E; Gooberman-Hill R; Blom A; Judge A; Arden N; Murray D; Glyn-Jones S; Barker K; Carr A; Beard D
    Health Technol Assess; 2019 Jun; 23(32):1-216. PubMed ID: 31287051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Risk-based, 6-monthly and 24-monthly dental check-ups for adults: the INTERVAL three-arm RCT.
    Clarkson JE; Pitts NB; Goulao B; Boyers D; Ramsay CR; Floate R; Braid HJ; Fee PA; Ord FS; Worthington HV; van der Pol M; Young L; Freeman R; Gouick J; Humphris GM; Mitchell FE; McDonald AM; Norrie JD; Sim K; Douglas G; Ricketts D
    Health Technol Assess; 2020 Nov; 24(60):1-138. PubMed ID: 33215986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold.
    Claxton K; Martin S; Soares M; Rice N; Spackman E; Hinde S; Devlin N; Smith PC; Sculpher M
    Health Technol Assess; 2015 Feb; 19(14):1-503, v-vi. PubMed ID: 25692211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Cost-effectiveness analysis of hydrophilic-coated catheters in long-term intermittent catheter users in the UK.
    Baker H; Avey B; Overbeck Rethmeier L; Mealing S; Lynge Buchter M; Averbeck MA; Thiruchelvam N
    Curr Med Res Opin; 2023 Feb; 39(2):319-328. PubMed ID: 36444510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Screening women aged 65 years or over for abdominal aortic aneurysm: a modelling study and health economic evaluation.
    Thompson SG; Bown MJ; Glover MJ; Jones E; Masconi KL; Michaels JA; Powell JT; Ulug P; Sweeting MJ
    Health Technol Assess; 2018 Aug; 22(43):1-142. PubMed ID: 30132754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Lamotrigine versus levetiracetam or zonisamide for focal epilepsy and valproate versus levetiracetam for generalised and unclassified epilepsy: two SANAD II non-inferiority RCTs.
    Marson AG; Burnside G; Appleton R; Smith D; Leach JP; Sills G; Tudur-Smith C; Plumpton CO; Hughes DA; Williamson PR; Baker G; Balabanova S; Taylor C; Brown R; Hindley D; Howell S; Maguire M; Mohanraj R; Smith PE
    Health Technol Assess; 2021 Dec; 25(75):1-134. PubMed ID: 34931602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Cost-effectiveness of volume computed tomography in lung cancer screening: a cohort simulation based on Nelson study outcomes.
    Pan X; Dvortsin E; Baldwin DR; Groen HJM; Ramaker D; Ryan J; Berge HT; Velikanova R; Oudkerk M; Postma MJ
    J Med Econ; 2024; 27(1):27-38. PubMed ID: 38050691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Long-term cost-effectiveness of interventions for obesity: A mendelian randomisation study.
    Harrison S; Dixon P; Jones HE; Davies AR; Howe LD; Davies NM
    PLoS Med; 2021 Aug; 18(8):e1003725. PubMed ID: 34449774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Bariatric surgery, lifestyle interventions and orlistat for severe obesity: the REBALANCE mixed-methods systematic review and economic evaluation.
    Avenell A; Robertson C; Skea Z; Jacobsen E; Boyers D; Cooper D; Aceves-Martins M; Retat L; Fraser C; Aveyard P; Stewart F; MacLennan G; Webber L; Corbould E; Xu B; Jaccard A; Boyle B; Duncan E; Shimonovich M; Bruin M
    Health Technol Assess; 2018 Nov; 22(68):1-246. PubMed ID: 30511918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. UK cost-effectiveness analysis of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty versus lifestyle modification alone for adults with class II obesity.
    Kelly J; Menon V; O'Neill F; Elliot L; Combe E; Drinkwater W; Abbott S; Hayee B
    Int J Obes (Lond); 2023 Nov; 47(11):1161-1170. PubMed ID: 37674032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Towards estimating the carbon footprint of external beam radiotherapy.
    Chuter R; Stanford-Edwards C; Cummings J; Taylor C; Lowe G; Holden E; Razak R; Glassborow E; Herbert S; Reggian G; Mee T; Lichter K; Aznar M
    Phys Med; 2023 Aug; 112():102652. PubMed ID: 37552912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of traditional and new partner notification technologies for curable sexually transmitted infections: observational study, systematic reviews and mathematical modelling.
    Althaus CL; Turner KM; Mercer CH; Auguste P; Roberts TE; Bell G; Herzog SA; Cassell JA; Edmunds WJ; White PJ; Ward H; Low N
    Health Technol Assess; 2014 Jan; 18(2):1-100, vii-viii. PubMed ID: 24411488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Telemedicine for sustainable postoperative follow-up: a prospective pilot study evaluating the hybrid life-cycle assessment approach to carbon footprint analysis.
    Lathan R; Hitchman L; Walshaw J; Ravindhran B; Carradice D; Smith G; Chetter I; Yiasemidou M
    Front Surg; 2024; 11():1300625. PubMed ID: 38562585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A comparison of the carbon footprint of alternative sampling approaches for cervical screening in the UK: A descriptive study.
    Whittaker M; Davies JC; Sargent A; Sawyer M; Crosbie EJ
    BJOG; 2024 Apr; 131(5):699-708. PubMed ID: 38012840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Vital role of clinicians in reducing the NHS carbon footprint through smarter procurement decisions.
    Al-Hadithy N; Knight K; Gopfert A; Van Hove M; Villa Garcia X
    BMJ Lead; 2024 Mar; 8(1):43-48. PubMed ID: 37541784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Carbon footprint and associated costs of asthma exacerbation care among UK adults.
    Kponee-Shovein K; Marvel J; Ishikawa R; Choubey A; Kaur H; Thokala P; Ngom K; Fakih I; Schatzki T; Signorovitch J
    J Med Econ; 2022; 25(1):524-531. PubMed ID: 35416088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Diagnostics Assessment Program Decisions: Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio Thresholds and Decision-Modifying Factors.
    Chen G; Peirce V; Marsh W
    Value Health; 2020 Oct; 23(10):1300-1306. PubMed ID: 33032773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.