Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Results: 1 to 20 of 451

Similar articles for PubMed (Select 23534078)

1.

Decision and Simulation Modeling in Systematic Reviews [Internet].

Kuntz K, Sainfort F, Butler M, Taylor B, Kulasingam S, Gregory S, Mann E, Anderson JM, Kane RL.

Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013 Feb.

2.

Adding decision models to systematic reviews: informing a framework for deciding when and how to do so.

Sainfort F, Kuntz KM, Gregory S, Butler M, Taylor BC, Kulasingam S, Kane RL.

Value Health. 2013 Jan-Feb;16(1):133-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.09.009. Review.

PMID:
23337224
3.

Evaluating the Potential Use of Modeling and Value-of-Information Analysis for Future Research Prioritization Within the Evidence-Based Practice Center Program [Internet].

Myers E, Sanders GD, Ravi D, Matchar D, Havrilesky L, Samsa G, Powers B, McBroom A, Musty M, Gray R.

Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2011 Jun.

4.

Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: qualitative study and methodological review.

Chilcott J, Tappenden P, Rawdin A, Johnson M, Kaltenthaler E, Paisley S, Papaioannou D, Shippam A.

Health Technol Assess. 2010 May;14(25):iii-iv, ix-xii, 1-107. doi: 10.3310/hta14250. Review.

5.

Frameworks for Determining Research Gaps During Systematic Reviews [Internet].

Robinson KA, Saldanha IJ, Mckoy NA.

Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2011 Jun.

6.
7.

Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.

Bekkering GE, Kleijnen J.

Eur J Health Econ. 2008 Nov;9 Suppl 1:5-29. doi: 10.1007/s10198-008-0122-5.

PMID:
18987905
8.

Systematizing the Use of Value of Information Analysis in Prioritizing Systematic Reviews [Internet].

Hoomans T, Seidenfeld J, Basu A, Meltzer D.

Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012 Aug.

9.

[Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany].

Bekkering GE, Kleijnen J.

Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2008 Dec;133 Suppl 7:S225-46. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1100954. Epub 2008 Nov 25. German.

PMID:
19034813
10.

Grading the Strength of a Body of Evidence When Assessing Health Care Interventions for the Effective Health Care Program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: An Update.

Berkman ND, Lohr KN, Ansari M, McDonagh M, Balk E, Whitlock E, Reston J, Bass E, Butler M, Gartlehner G, Hartling L, Kane R, McPheeters M, Morgan L, Morton SC, Viswanathan M, Sista P, Chang S.

Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008-.
2013 Nov 18.

11.

Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment.

Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, Riemsma R, Woolacoot N, Glanville J.

Health Technol Assess. 2004 Sep;8(36):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-158. Review.

12.

Cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to select women with breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy.

Williams C, Brunskill S, Altman D, Briggs A, Campbell H, Clarke M, Glanville J, Gray A, Harris A, Johnston K, Lodge M.

Health Technol Assess. 2006 Sep;10(34):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-204. Review.

13.

The ISPOR Good Practices for Quality Improvement of Cost-Effectiveness Research Task Force Report.

McGhan WF, Al M, Doshi JA, Kamae I, Marx SE, Rindress D.

Value Health. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(8):1086-99. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00605.x. Epub 2009 Sep 10.

PMID:
19744291
14.

Comparative Effectiveness Review Methods: Clinical Heterogeneity [Internet].

West SL, Gartlehner G, Mansfield AJ, Poole C, Tant E, Lenfestey N, Lux LJ, Amoozegar J, Morton SC, Carey TC, Viswanathan M, Lohr KN.

Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2010 Sep.

15.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of technologies used to visualise the seizure focus in people with refractory epilepsy being considered for surgery: a systematic review and decision-analytical model.

Burch J, Hinde S, Palmer S, Beyer F, Minton J, Marson A, Wieshmann U, Woolacott N, Soares M.

Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(34):1-157, iii-iv. doi: 10.3310/hta16340. Review.

16.

Assessment and statistical modeling of the relationship between remotely sensed aerosol optical depth and PM2.5 in the eastern United States.

Paciorek CJ, Liu Y; HEI Health Review Committee.

Res Rep Health Eff Inst. 2012 May;(167):5-83; discussion 85-91.

PMID:
22838153
17.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of home-based, nurse-led health promotion for older people: a systematic review.

Tappenden P, Campbell F, Rawdin A, Wong R, Kalita N.

Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(20):1-72. doi: 10.3310/hta16200. Review.

18.

Methods for Benefit and Harm Assessment in Systematic Reviews [Internet].

Boyd CM, Singh S, Varadhan R, Weiss CO, Sharma R, Bass EB, Puhan MA.

Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012 Nov.

19.

Defining the Benefits of Stakeholder Engagement in Systematic Reviews [Internet].

Cottrell E, Whitlock E, Kato E, Uhl S, Belinson S, Chang C, Hoomans T, Meltzer D, Noorani H, Robinson K, Schoelles K, Motu'apuaka M, Anderson J, Paynter R, Guise JM.

Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2014 Mar.

20.

Family pediatrics: report of the Task Force on the Family.

Schor EL; American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on the Family.

Pediatrics. 2003 Jun;111(6 Pt 2):1541-71.

PMID:
12777595
Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk