Format
Sort by

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 70

1.

Communicating about comparative effectiveness research: a Health Affairs symposium on the issues.

Dentzer S; Editorial Team of Health Affairs..

Health Aff (Millwood). 2012 Oct;31(10):2183-7. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0607.

2.

Communication about results of comparative effectiveness studies: a pharmaceutical industry view.

Perfetto EM, Bailey JE Jr, Gans-Brangs KR, Romano SJ, Rosenthal NR, Willke RJ.

Health Aff (Millwood). 2012 Oct;31(10):2213-9. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0745.

3.

The hypothetical migraine drug comparative effectiveness study: a payer's recommendations for obtaining more useful results.

Epstein RS.

Health Aff (Millwood). 2012 Oct;31(10):2225-30. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0730.

4.

The Food and Drug Administration has the legal basis to restrict promotion of flawed comparative effectiveness research.

Kesselheim AS, Avorn J.

Health Aff (Millwood). 2012 Oct;31(10):2200-5. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0787.

5.

Congress should clarify the circumstances under which drug makers can communicate results on comparative effectiveness.

Klasmeier C.

Health Aff (Millwood). 2012 Oct;31(10):2220-4. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0813.

6.

Reviewing hypothetical migraine studies using funding criteria from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Selby JV, Fleurence R, Lauer M, Schneeweiss S.

Health Aff (Millwood). 2012 Oct;31(10):2193-9. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0774.

7.

Regulatory requirements of the Food and Drug Administration would preclude product claims based on observational research.

Griffin JP, Godfrey BM, Sherman RE.

Health Aff (Millwood). 2012 Oct;31(10):2188-92. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0958.

8.

When is a cost-effectiveness claim valid? How much should the FDA care?

Luce BR, Hillman AL.

Am J Manag Care. 1997 Nov;3(11):1660-6.

9.

Academic detailing can play a key role in assessing and implementing comparative effectiveness research findings.

Fischer MA, Avorn J.

Health Aff (Millwood). 2012 Oct;31(10):2206-12. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0817.

10.

A flexible approach to evidentiary standards for comparative effectiveness research.

Garrison LP Jr, Neumann PJ, Radensky P, Walcoff SD.

Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Oct;29(10):1812-7. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0692.

11.

FDA reform signed into law. Food and Drug Administration.

James JS.

AIDS Treat News. 1997 Dec 5;(No 284):6-7.

PMID:
11364915
12.

Among other flaws, hypothetical migraine study lacks independent evaluation and patient engagement.

Boutin M.

Health Aff (Millwood). 2012 Oct;31(10):2231-5. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0764.

13.

US FDA Modernization Act, section 114: uses, opportunities and implications for comparative effectiveness research.

Neumann PJ, Lin PJ, Hughes TE.

Pharmacoeconomics. 2011 Aug;29(8):687-92. doi: 10.2165/11590510-000000000-00000.

PMID:
21732704
15.

From comparative effectiveness research to patient-centered outcomes research: integrating emergency care goals, methods, and priorities.

Meisel ZF, Carr BG, Conway PH.

Ann Emerg Med. 2012 Sep;60(3):309-16. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.03.021.

17.

How the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute can best influence real-world health care decision making.

Garber AM.

Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Dec;30(12):2243-51. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0255.

18.

Impact of Postapproval Evidence Generation on the Biopharmaceutical Industry.

Milne CP, Cohen JP, Felix A, Chakravarthy R.

Clin Ther. 2015 Aug;37(8):1852-8. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2015.05.514.

PMID:
26143223
20.

The Veterans Affairs experience: comparative effectiveness research in a large health system.

Atkins D, Kupersmith J, Eisen S.

Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Oct;29(10):1906-12. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0680.

Items per page

Supplemental Content

Support Center