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 *

69 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6668992)

  • 1. Measurement of values for states of health with linear analog scales.
    Sutherland HJ; Dunn V; Boyd NF
    Med Decis Making; 1983; 3(4):477-87. PubMed ID: 6668992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Describing health states. Methodologic issues in obtaining values for health states.
    Llewellyn-Thomas H; Sutherland HJ; Tibshirani R; Ciampi A; Till JE; Boyd NF
    Med Care; 1984 Jun; 22(6):543-52. PubMed ID: 6738144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Patients' perceptions of the value of current vision: assessment of preference values among patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization--The Submacular Surgery Trials Vision Preference Value Scale: SST Report No. 6.
    Bass EB; Marsh MJ; Mangione CM; Bressler NM; Childs AL; Dong LM; Hawkins BS; Jaffee HA; Miskala P;
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2004 Dec; 122(12):1856-67. PubMed ID: 15596591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Health status index: category rating versus magnitude estimation for measuring levels of well-being.
    Kaplan RM; Bush JW; Berry CC
    Med Care; 1979 May; 17(5):501-25. PubMed ID: 372692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The gap effect: discontinuities of preferences around dead.
    Stalmeier PF; Busschbach JJ; Lamers LM; Krabbe PF
    Health Econ; 2005 Jul; 14(7):679-85. PubMed ID: 15744750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Measuring preferences for health states worse than death.
    Patrick DL; Starks HE; Cain KC; Uhlmann RF; Pearlman RA
    Med Decis Making; 1994; 14(1):9-18. PubMed ID: 8152361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. "Perfect health" versus "disease free": the impact of anchor point choice on the measurement of preferences and the calculation of disease-specific disutilities.
    King JT; Styn MA; Tsevat J; Roberts MS
    Med Decis Making; 2003; 23(3):212-25. PubMed ID: 12809319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Do category rating scales produce biased preference weights for a health index?
    Kaplan RM; Ernst JA
    Med Care; 1983 Feb; 21(2):193-207. PubMed ID: 6827873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states.
    Badia X; Roset M; Herdman M; Kind P
    Med Decis Making; 2001; 21(1):7-16. PubMed ID: 11206949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The measurement of patients' values in medicine.
    Llewellyn-Thomas H; Sutherland HJ; Tibshirani R; Ciampi A; Till JE; Boyd NF
    Med Decis Making; 1982; 2(4):449-62. PubMed ID: 7182703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Applying the Expectancy-Value Model to understand health values.
    Zhang XH; Xie F; Wee HL; Thumboo J; Li SC
    Value Health; 2008 Mar; 11 Suppl 1():S61-8. PubMed ID: 18387069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The health status of southern children: a neglected regional disparity.
    Goldhagen J; Remo R; Bryant T; Wludyka P; Dailey A; Wood D; Watts G; Livingood W
    Pediatrics; 2005 Dec; 116(6):e746-53. PubMed ID: 16263972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Quality of life and congenital heart defects: comparing parent and professional values.
    Knowles RL; Griebsch I; Bull C; Brown J; Wren C; Dezateux C
    Arch Dis Child; 2007 May; 92(5):388-93. PubMed ID: 16737999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Quality of life in cervical cancer survivors: patient and provider perspectives on common complications of cervical cancer and treatment.
    Einstein MH; Rash JK; Chappell RJ; Swietlik JM; Hollenberg JP; Connor JP
    Gynecol Oncol; 2012 Apr; 125(1):163-7. PubMed ID: 22063460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. On the assessment of preferences for health and duration: maximal endurable time and better than dead preferences.
    Stalmeier PF; Lamers LM; Busschbach JJ; Krabbe PF
    Med Care; 2007 Sep; 45(9):835-41. PubMed ID: 17712253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Developing multiattribute health indexes.
    Boyle MH; Torrance GW
    Med Care; 1984 Nov; 22(11):1045-57. PubMed ID: 6503398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Using preference-based measures to assess quality of life in stuttering.
    Bramlett RE; Bothe AK; Franic DM
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2006 Apr; 49(2):381-94. PubMed ID: 16671851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. CDC National Health Report: leading causes of morbidity and mortality and associated behavioral risk and protective factors--United States, 2005-2013.
    Johnson NB; Hayes LD; Brown K; Hoo EC; Ethier KA;
    MMWR Suppl; 2014 Oct; 63(4):3-27. PubMed ID: 25356673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Intensity of chemotherapy-induced emesis and overall survival as determinants of a global utility score.
    Grunberg SM; Srivastava A; Grunberg KJ; Weeks J
    Support Care Cancer; 2002 Nov; 10(8):624-9. PubMed ID: 12436221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.
    Parker SL; Adogwa O; Paul AR; Anderson WN; Aaronson O; Cheng JS; McGirt MJ
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2011 May; 14(5):598-604. PubMed ID: 21332281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.