Format
Sort by

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 15

1.

The health systems' priority setting criteria for selecting health technologies: A systematic review of the current evidence.

Mobinizadeh M, Raeissi P, Nasiripour AA, Olyaeemanesh A, Tabibi SJ.

Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2016 Feb 16;30:329.

2.

A model for priority setting of health technology assessment: the experience of AHP-TOPSIS combination approach.

Mobinizadeh M, Raeissi P, Nasiripour AA, Olyaeemanesh A, Tabibi SJ.

Daru. 2016 Apr 11;24:10. doi: 10.1186/s40199-016-0148-7.

3.

Using Economic Evidence to Set Healthcare Priorities in Low-Income and Lower-Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Methodological Frameworks.

Wiseman V, Mitton C, Doyle-Waters MM, Drake T, Conteh L, Newall AT, Onwujekwe O, Jan S.

Health Econ. 2016 Feb;25 Suppl 1:140-61. doi: 10.1002/hec.3299. Review.

4.

Involving patient in the early stages of health technology assessment (HTA): a study protocol.

Gagnon MP, Candas B, Desmartis M, Gagnon J, La Roche D, Rhainds M, Coulombe M, Dipankui MT, Légaré F.

BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Jun 20;14:273. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-273.

5.

Setting priorities for comparative effectiveness research on management of primary angle closure: a survey of Asia-Pacific clinicians.

Yu T, Li T, Lee KJ, Friedman DS, Dickersin K, Puhan MA.

J Glaucoma. 2015 Jun-Jul;24(5):348-55. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31829e5616.

6.

Establishing local priorities for a health research agenda.

Whear R, Thompson-Coon J, Boddy K, Papworth H, Frier J, Stein K.

Health Expect. 2015 Feb;18(1):8-21. doi: 10.1111/hex.12029. Review.

7.

From efficacy to equity: Literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking.

Guindo LA, Wagner M, Baltussen R, Rindress D, van Til J, Kind P, Goetghebeur MM.

Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012 Jul 18;10(1):9. doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-10-9.

8.

Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement.

Deverka PA, Lavallee DC, Desai PJ, Esmail LC, Ramsey SD, Veenstra DL, Tunis SR.

J Comp Eff Res. 2012 Mar;1(2):181-194.

9.

What comparative effectiveness research is needed? A framework for using guidelines and systematic reviews to identify evidence gaps and research priorities.

Li T, Vedula SS, Scherer R, Dickersin K.

Ann Intern Med. 2012 Mar 6;156(5):367-77. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-156-5-201203060-00009.

10.

Health care priority setting in Norway a multicriteria decision analysis.

Defechereux T, Paolucci F, Mirelman A, Youngkong S, Botten G, Hagen TP, Niessen LW.

BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Feb 15;12:39. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-39.

11.

Setting priorities for comparative effectiveness research: a case study using primary open-angle glaucoma.

Li T, Ervin AM, Scherer R, Jampel H, Dickersin K.

Ophthalmology. 2010 Oct;117(10):1937-45. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.07.004.

12.

Prioritisation criteria for the selection of new diagnostic technologies for evaluation.

Plüddemann A, Heneghan C, Thompson M, Roberts N, Summerton N, Linden-Phillips L, Packer C, Price CP.

BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 May 5;10:109. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-109.

13.

Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking--the EVIDEM framework and potential applications.

Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D.

BMC Health Serv Res. 2008 Dec 22;8:270. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-270. Review.

14.

Clearing up the hazy road from bench to bedside: a framework for integrating the fourth hurdle into translational medicine.

Rogowski WH, Hartz SC, John JH.

BMC Health Serv Res. 2008 Sep 24;8:194. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-194.

15.

Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens' jury.

Menon D, Stafinski T.

Health Expect. 2008 Sep;11(3):282-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00501.x.

Items per page

Supplemental Content

Support Center