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 *

147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6335216)

  • 1. Preferences for health outcomes. Comparison of assessment methods.
    Read JL; Quinn RJ; Berwick DM; Fineberg HV; Weinstein MC
    Med Decis Making; 1984; 4(3):315-29. PubMed ID: 6335216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Examination of assumptions in using time tradeoff and standard gamble utilities in individuals with spinal cord injury.
    Lin MR; Yu WY; Wang SC
    Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 2012 Feb; 93(2):245-52. PubMed ID: 22289233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Acceptability of computerized visual analog scale, time trade-off and standard gamble rating methods in patients and the public.
    Lenert LA; Sturley AE
    Proc AMIA Symp; 2001; ():364-8. PubMed ID: 11825211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities.
    Bleichrodt H
    Health Econ; 2002 Jul; 11(5):447-56. PubMed ID: 12112493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The standard gamble showed better construct validity than the time trade-off.
    Puhan MA; Schünemann HJ; Wong E; Griffith L; Guyatt GH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2007 Oct; 60(10):1029-33. PubMed ID: 17884597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The utility assessment method order influences measurement of parents' risk attitude.
    Finnell SM; Carroll AE; Downs SM
    Value Health; 2012; 15(6):926-32. PubMed ID: 22999143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of Health State Utility Measures in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer.
    Noel CW; Lee DJ; Kong Q; Xu W; Simpson C; Brown D; Gilbert RW; Gullane PJ; Irish JC; Huang SH; O'Sullivan B; Goldstein DP; de Almeida JR
    JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2015 Aug; 141(8):696-703. PubMed ID: 26204439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Health values of patients with systemic sclerosis.
    Khanna D; Ahmed M; Furst DE; Ginsburg SS; Park GS; Hornung R; Tsevat J
    Arthritis Rheum; 2007 Feb; 57(1):86-93. PubMed ID: 17266070
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Interpretation of health and vision utilities in low vision patients.
    Malkin AG; Goldstein JE; Massof RW
    Optom Vis Sci; 2012 Mar; 89(3):288-95. PubMed ID: 22227913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Assessment of respondent acceptability of preference measures: discriminatory power of graphic positioning scale versus traditional scaling measures.
    Franic DM; Pathak DS
    Value Health; 2003; 6(4):483-93. PubMed ID: 12859590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Preference-based measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in children with chronic musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs).
    Brunner HI; Maker D; Grundland B; Young NL; Blanchette V; Stain AM; Feldman BM
    Med Decis Making; 2003; 23(4):314-22. PubMed ID: 12926581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Overcoming inherent problems of preference-based techniques for measuring health benefits: an empirical study in the context of kidney transplantation.
    Kontodimopoulos N; Niakas D
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2006 Jan; 6():3. PubMed ID: 16412242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The implications of linking questions within the SG and TTO methods.
    Spencer A
    Health Econ; 2004 Aug; 13(8):807-18. PubMed ID: 15322992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Assessment of respondent acceptability for preference measures in stuttering.
    Franic DM; Bothe AK; Bramlett RE
    J Commun Disord; 2012; 45(5):378-89. PubMed ID: 22682377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Risk attitude and preferences in person's hypothetically facing open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.
    Letterstål A; Olofsson P; Forsberg C
    J Vasc Nurs; 2012 Dec; 30(4):112-7. PubMed ID: 23127427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Patient participation in clinical decision-making for treatment of T3 laryngeal cancer: a comparison of state and process utilities.
    van der Donk J; Levendag PC; Kuijpers AJ; Roest FH; Habbema JD; Meeuwis CA; Schmitz PI
    J Clin Oncol; 1995 Sep; 13(9):2369-78. PubMed ID: 7666096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Measuring utilities of severe facial disfigurement and composite tissue allotransplantation of the face in patients with severe face and neck burns from the perspectives of the general public, medical experts and patients.
    Chuback J; Yarascavitch B; Yarascavitch A; Kaur MN; Martin S; Thoma A
    Burns; 2015 Nov; 41(7):1524-31. PubMed ID: 26068209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery: clinical decision making and cost-effectiveness analysis.
    Pliskin JS; Stason WB; Weinstein MC; Johnson RA; Cohn PF; McEnany MT; Braun P
    Med Decis Making; 1981; 1(1):10-28. PubMed ID: 6820456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The relationship of medical, demographic and psychosocial factors to direct and indirect health utility instruments in rheumatoid arthritis.
    Witney AG; Treharne GJ; Tavakoli M; Lyons AC; Vincent K; Scott DL; Kitas GD
    Rheumatology (Oxford); 2006 Aug; 45(8):975-81. PubMed ID: 16461437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Thigh laxity after massive weight loss: a utilities outcomes assessment.
    Izadpanah A; Sinno H; Vorstenbosch J; Lee BT; Lin SJ
    Ann Plast Surg; 2013 Sep; 71(3):304-7. PubMed ID: 23788144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.