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.
Pubmed for Handhelds
PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS
Journal Abstract Search
104 related items for PubMed ID: 39498629
1. Perceptions of indirect treatment comparisons as an evidence base in oncology decision-making: results of an international survey of health technology assessment and payer decision-makers. Katsoulis I, Graham A, Thompson A, Gharibian N, Pawar V, Khurana V, Ferreira R, Panikar A, Kearney M. J Comp Eff Res; 2024 Nov; 13(11):e240040. PubMed ID: 39498629 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Payer Perspectives on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Health Care Decision Making: Oncology Examples. Brogan AP, DeMuro C, Barrett AM, D'Alessio D, Bal V, Hogue SL. J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2017 Feb; 23(2):125-134. PubMed ID: 28125369 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Health technology assessment for cancer medicines across the G7 countries and Oceania: an international, cross-sectional study. Jenei K, Raymakers AJN, Bayle A, Berger-Thürmel K, Cherla A, Honda K, Jackson CCGA, Karikios D, Trapani D, Berry S, Gyawali B. Lancet Oncol; 2023 Jun; 24(6):624-635. PubMed ID: 37269843 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. The Acceptance of Indirect Treatment Comparison Methods in Oncology by Health Technology Assessment Agencies in England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Macabeo B, Rotrou T, Millier A, François C, Laramée P. Pharmacoecon Open; 2024 Jan; 8(1):5-18. PubMed ID: 38097828 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Can we use existing guidance to support the development of robust real-world evidence for health technology assessment/payer decision-making? Capkun G, Corry S, Dowling O, Asad Zadeh Vosta Kolaei F, Takyar S, Furtado C, Jónsson P, Kleinermans D, Lambert L, Schiel A, Facey K. Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2022 Nov 02; 38(1):e79. PubMed ID: 36321447 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Real-world evidence in the reassessment of oncology therapies: payer perceptions from five countries. Bharmal M, Katsoulis I, Chang J, Graham A, Stavropoulou A, Jhingran P, Pashos CL. Future Oncol; 2024 Nov 02; 20(21):1467-1478. PubMed ID: 38573230 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Companies' Health Technology Assessment Strategies and Practices in Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain: An Industry Metrics Study. Wang T, McAuslane N, Liberti L, Gardarsdottir H, Goettsch W, Leufkens H. Front Pharmacol; 2020 Nov 02; 11():594549. PubMed ID: 33390978 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Health technology assessment and private payers' coverage of personalized medicine. Trosman JR, Van Bebber SL, Phillips KA. J Oncol Pract; 2011 May 02; 7(3 Suppl):18s-24s. PubMed ID: 21886515 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Health technology assessment and private payers's coverage of personalized medicine. Trosman JR, Van Bebber SL, Phillips KA. Am J Manag Care; 2011 May 02; 17 Suppl 5 Developing():SP53-60. PubMed ID: 21711078 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. A MEA is a MEA is a MEA? Sequential decision making and the impact of different managed entry agreements at the manufacturer and payer level, using a case study for an oncology drug in England. Buyukkaramikli NC, Wigfield P, Hoang MT. Eur J Health Econ; 2021 Feb 02; 22(1):51-73. PubMed ID: 32901420 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. An International Review of Health Technology Assessment Approaches to Prescription Drugs and Their Ethical Principles. Rand LZ, Kesselheim AS. J Law Med Ethics; 2020 Sep 02; 48(3):583-594. PubMed ID: 33021189 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]