187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6372811)
1. Experiences with evaluating the safety and efficacy of medical technologies.
Moses LE; Brown BW
Annu Rev Public Health; 1984; 5():267-92. PubMed ID: 6372811
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. The assessment process: a microscopic view.
Murphy JR
Med Prog Technol; 1991; 17(2):77-83. PubMed ID: 1835753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Some alternative perspectives concerning medical technology assessment.
Diamond GA
J Invasive Cardiol; 1992; 4(1):39-44. PubMed ID: 10149903
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Effectiveness/efficacy difference too often ignored.
Silverman E
Manag Care; 2013 Jan; 22(1):36. PubMed ID: 23373138
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Surveillance of medical technologies.
Thacker SB; Berkelman RL
J Public Health Policy; 1986; 7(3):363-77. PubMed ID: 3771786
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Medical evidence quality: a cause for uncertainty. Part II.
Billings J
Bus Health; 1988 Jan; 5(3):28-33. PubMed ID: 10302129
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Technology assessment in medicine: methods, status and trends.
Hendee WR
Med Prog Technol; 1991; 17(2):69-75. PubMed ID: 1835752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Study design in the evaluation of breast cancer imaging technologies.
Houn F; Bright RA; Bushar HF; Croft BY; Finder CA; Gohagan JK; Jennings RJ; Keegan P; Kessler LG; Kramer BS; Martynec LO; Robinowitz M; Sacks WM; Schultz DG; Wagner RF
Acad Radiol; 2000 Sep; 7(9):684-92. PubMed ID: 10987329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Missing evidence.
Hayes WS
MLO Med Lab Obs; 2008 Oct; 40(10):68. PubMed ID: 18988559
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Finding studies on reboxetine: a tale of hide and seek.
Wieseler B; McGauran N; Kaiser T
BMJ; 2010 Oct; 341():c4942. PubMed ID: 20940211
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Can we reliably benchmark health technology assessment organizations?
Drummond M; Neumann P; Jönsson B; Luce B; Schwartz JS; Siebert U; Sullivan SD
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2012 Apr; 28(2):159-65. PubMed ID: 22559758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. From "promising report" to "standard procedure": seven stages in the career of a medical innovation.
McKinlay JB
Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc; 1981; 59(3):374-411. PubMed ID: 6912389
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Evaluation of medical-technology strategies: effects of coverage and reimbursement (first of two parts).
Bunker JP; Fowles J; Schaffarzick R
N Engl J Med; 1982 Mar; 306(10):620-4. PubMed ID: 7035944
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Regulation of somatic-cell therapy and gene therapy by the food and drug administration.
Kessler DA; Siegel JP; Noguchi PD; Zoon KC; Feiden KL; Woodcock J
N Engl J Med; 1993 Oct; 329(16):1169-73. PubMed ID: 8377782
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The clinical evaluation of health care technology.
Guyatt GH
Dimens Health Serv; 1987 Feb; 64(1):42-4. PubMed ID: 3569686
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluation of computer-aided detection devices: consensus is developing.
Summers RM
Acad Radiol; 2012 Apr; 19(4):377-9. PubMed ID: 22444672
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. The Food and Drug Administration and atrial defibrillation devices.
Chen L; Keane AT; Every NR
Am J Manag Care; 1999 Jul; 5(7):899-909. PubMed ID: 10557410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Technology assessments need improvement--study.
Scott L
Mod Healthc; 1994 Oct; 24(43):38. PubMed ID: 10138123
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Medical and dental technology assessment.
Ballard GT
Technol Health Care; 1996 Sep; 4(3):291-303. PubMed ID: 8931239
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Epidemiologic methodology in evaluating health technology.
Naggan L
Isr J Med Sci; 1986; 22(3-4):179-82. PubMed ID: 3744768
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
