Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 90

1.

Economic evaluation of screening for open-angle glaucoma.

Hernández RA, Burr JM, Vale LD; OAG Screening Project Group.

Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008 Spring;24(2):203-11. doi: 10.1017/S0266462308080288.

PMID:
18400124
2.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening for open angle glaucoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

Burr JM, Mowatt G, Hernández R, Siddiqui MA, Cook J, Lourenco T, Ramsay C, Vale L, Fraser C, Azuara-Blanco A, Deeks J, Cairns J, Wormald R, McPherson S, Rabindranath K, Grant A.

Health Technol Assess. 2007 Oct;11(41):iii-iv, ix-x, 1-190. Review.

3.
4.

Developing the clinical components of a complex intervention for a glaucoma screening trial: a mixed methods study.

Glaucoma screening Platform Study group, Burr JM, Campbell MK, Campbell SE, Francis JJ, Greene A, Hernández R, Hopkins D, McCann SK, Vale LD.

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 Apr 21;11:54. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-54.

5.

Surveillance of Barrett's oesophagus: exploring the uncertainty through systematic review, expert workshop and economic modelling.

Garside R, Pitt M, Somerville M, Stein K, Price A, Gilbert N.

Health Technol Assess. 2006 Mar;10(8):1-142, iii-iv. Review.

6.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of carmustine implants and temozolomide for the treatment of newly diagnosed high-grade glioma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

Garside R, Pitt M, Anderson R, Rogers G, Dyer M, Mealing S, Somerville M, Price A, Stein K.

Health Technol Assess. 2007 Nov;11(45):iii-iv, ix-221. Review.

7.

Screening for open angle glaucoma: systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies.

Hernández R, Rabindranath K, Fraser C, Vale L, Blanco AA, Burr JM; OAG Screening Project Group.

J Glaucoma. 2008 Apr-May;17(3):159-68. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31814b9693.

PMID:
18414099
8.

Glaucoma in the English-speaking Caribbean.

Grosvenor D, Hennis A.

West Indian Med J. 2011 Jul;60(4):459-63.

PMID:
22097678
9.

Routine eye examinations for persons 20-64 years of age: an evidence-based analysis.

Health Quality Ontario.

Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2006;6(15):1-81. Epub 2006 Jul 1.

10.

Screening for prevention of optic nerve damage due to chronic open angle glaucoma.

Hatt S, Wormald R, Burr J.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Oct 18;(4):CD006129. Review.

PMID:
17054274
11.

A preliminary model-based assessment of the cost-utility of a screening programme for early age-related macular degeneration.

Karnon J, Czoski-Murray C, Smith K, Brand C, Chakravarthy U, Davis S, Bansback N, Beverley C, Bird A, Harding S, Chisholm I, Yang YC.

Health Technol Assess. 2008 Jun;12(27):iii-iv, ix-124.

12.

Cost effectiveness and cost utility of an organized screening programme for glaucoma.

Vaahtoranta-Lehtonen H, Tuulonen A, Aronen P, Sintonen H, Suoranta L, Kovanen N, Linna M, Läärä E, Malmivaara A.

Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007 Aug;85(5):508-18.

13.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary human papillomavirus cervical screening in England: extended follow-up of the ARTISTIC randomised trial cohort through three screening rounds.

C Kitchener H, Canfell K, Gilham C, Sargent A, Roberts C, Desai M, Peto J.

Health Technol Assess. 2014 Apr;18(23):1-196. doi: 10.3310/hta18230.

14.

Screening for type 2 diabetes: literature review and economic modelling.

Waugh N, Scotland G, McNamee P, Gillett M, Brennan A, Goyder E, Williams R, John A.

Health Technol Assess. 2007 May;11(17):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-125. Review.

15.

Screening for hypercholesterolaemia versus case finding for familial hypercholesterolaemia: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Marks D, Wonderling D, Thorogood M, Lambert H, Humphries SE, Neil HA.

Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(29):1-123. Review.

16.

Cost-effectiveness of HIV screening in patients older than 55 years of age.

Sanders GD, Bayoumi AM, Holodniy M, Owens DK.

Ann Intern Med. 2008 Jun 17;148(12):889-903.

17.

The cost-effectiveness of routine office-based identification and subsequent medical treatment of primary open-angle glaucoma in the United States.

Rein DB, Wittenborn JS, Lee PP, Wirth KE, Sorensen SW, Hoerger TJ, Saaddine JB.

Ophthalmology. 2009 May;116(5):823-32. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.12.056. Epub 2009 Mar 14.

PMID:
19285730
18.

Is it worthwhile to conduct a randomized controlled trial of glaucoma screening in the United Kingdom?

Burr J, Hernández R, Ramsay C, Prior M, Campbell S, Azuara-Blanco A, Campbell M, Francis J, Vale L.

J Health Serv Res Policy. 2014 Jan;19(1):42-51. doi: 10.1177/1355819613499748. Epub 2013 Oct 2.

19.

Screen-and-treat strategies for albuminuria to prevent cardiovascular and renal disease: cost-effectiveness of nationwide and targeted interventions based on analysis of cohort data from the Netherlands.

Boersma C, Gansevoort RT, Pechlivanoglou P, Visser ST, van Toly FF, de Jong-van den Berg LT, de Jong PE, Postma MJ; Prevention of Renal and Vascular End Stage Disease Study Group.

Clin Ther. 2010 Jun;32(6):1103-21. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2010.06.013.

PMID:
20637965
20.

Glaucoma screening. A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Gottlieb LK, Schwartz B, Pauker SG.

Surv Ophthalmol. 1983 Nov-Dec;28(3):206-26.

PMID:
6422576

Supplemental Content

Support Center