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.
80 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8969328)
1. Initial development of the Australian Guidelines. Freund DA Med Care; 1996 Dec; 34(12 Suppl):DS211-5. PubMed ID: 8969328 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Update and evaluation of Australian guidelines. Government perspective. Mitchell A Med Care; 1996 Dec; 34(12 Suppl):DS216-25. PubMed ID: 8969329 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Speaking from experience. Australia. Med Care; 1996 Dec; 34(12 Suppl):DS233-5. PubMed ID: 8999206 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Meeting the information needs of drug purchasers: the evolution of formulary submission guidelines. Langley PC Clin Ther; 1999 Apr; 21(4):768-87; discussion 767. PubMed ID: 10363741 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Guidelines for measuring the costs and consequences of adopting new pharmaceutical products: are they on track? Pausjenssen AM; Detsky AS Med Decis Making; 1998; 18(2 Suppl):S19-22. PubMed ID: 9566463 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Industry comment on the 1995 revised Australian pharmacoeconomic guidelines. Grobler MP; Macarounas-Kirchmann K; Pearce GA; Stafford M Pharmacoeconomics; 1996 Apr; 9(4):353-6. PubMed ID: 10160109 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Single-payer and all-payer systems: implications for emergency medicine in the United States. Williams RM Ann Emerg Med; 2001 Mar; 37(3):337-9. PubMed ID: 11223771 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. The role of the pharmaceutical industry in drug development in dermatology. Cauwenbergh G Clin Dermatol; 2002; 20(5):467-73. PubMed ID: 12435516 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Accumulating evidence for the case of differential discounting. Postma MJ; Parouty M; Westra TA Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol; 2013 Jan; 6(1):1-3. PubMed ID: 23272787 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Methods controversies and agreement. Assessing quality and cost; design and interpretation of evaluations. Special commentary. Caglarcan E Med Care; 1996 Dec; 34(12 Suppl):DS153-4. PubMed ID: 8999202 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Is there a need for standardization of methods in economic evaluations of medicine? Rittenhouse BE Med Care; 1996 Dec; 34(12 Suppl):DS13-22. PubMed ID: 8969311 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Can pharmacoeconomic guidelines be implemented successfully in Asia? Li SC J Med Econ; 2008; 11(2):341-3. PubMed ID: 19450090 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. The National Pharmaceuticals Strategy: Rest in peace, revive or renew? MacKinnon NJ; Ip I CMAJ; 2009 Apr; 180(8):801-3. PubMed ID: 19190081 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Standardization of the economic evaluation of health technologies. European developments. Rovira J Med Care; 1996 Dec; 34(12 Suppl):DS182-8. PubMed ID: 8969325 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Update and evaluation of Australian guidelines. Industry perspective. Carmine B Med Care; 1996 Dec; 34(12 Suppl):DS226-32. PubMed ID: 8969330 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Current efforts in standards development. United States. Power EJ Med Care; 1996 Dec; 34(12 Suppl):DS200-3; discussion DS204-7. PubMed ID: 8969327 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. [Guidelines for economic evaluation of drugs. Something for Sweden?]. Persson U Lakartidningen; 1997 Jun; 94(24):2289-92. PubMed ID: 9213707 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]