Societal preference values for advanced melanoma health states in the United Kingdom and Australia.
about
Cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for BRAF-mutated metastatic melanomaPopulation preference values for treatment outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: a cross-sectional utility study.Patient-reported utilities in advanced or metastatic melanoma, including analysis of utilities by time to death.Assessment of patient-reported outcomes in patients with melanoma.Cost Effectiveness of Sequencing 34 Cancer-Associated Genes as an Aid for Treatment Selection in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma.Targeted Therapies Compared to Dacarbazine for Treatment of BRAF(V600E) Metastatic Melanoma: A Cost-Effectiveness AnalysisDevelopment of the multi-attribute Adolescent Health Utility Measure (AHUM).Cost-Effectiveness of Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in BRAF Wild-Type Advanced Melanoma.Population preference values for health states in relapsed or refractory B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the United KingdomQuality of life valuations of HPV-associated cancer health states by the general population.Q-TWiST analysis comparing ipilimumab/dacarbazine vs placebo/dacarbazine for patients with stage III/IV melanoma.Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib compared with sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma in CanadaA systematic review of utility values for chemotherapy-related adverse events.Vemurafenib for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation-positive malignant melanoma: a NICE single technology appraisal.Are the true impacts of adverse events considered in economic models of antineoplastic drugs? A systematic review.Cost-effectiveness of therapies for melanoma.Multiple treatment comparison of seven new drugs for patients with advanced malignant melanoma: a systematic review and health economic decision model in a Norwegian setting.Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab-Ipilimumab Combination Therapy Compared with Monotherapy for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Melanoma in the United States.Cost-effectiveness of vedolizumab compared with infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in patients with ulcerative colitis in the United Kingdom.Development of a transformation model to derive general population-based utility: Mapping the pruritus-visual analog scale (VAS) to the EQ-5D utility.A cost-effectiveness analysis of trametinib plus dabrafenib as first-line therapy for metastatic BRAF V600-mutated melanoma in the Swiss setting.Patient preferences for treating refractory overactive bladder in the UK.Cost-effectiveness of vedolizumab compared with conventional therapy for ulcerative colitis patients in the UK.Societal preferences for adjuvant melanoma health states: UK and Australia.Cost-effectiveness of a FISH assay for the diagnosis of melanoma in the USA.Modeling the economic outcomes of immuno-oncology drugs: alternative model frameworks to capture clinical outcomes.Early cost-effectiveness of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) for second line treatment in advanced melanoma: a model-based economic evaluationCost-effectiveness of ustekinumab in moderate to severe Crohn's disease in Sweden
P2860
Q28542877-2CC5C57E-4402-4419-98D4-C3A65380FE7BQ33934317-067EF2FF-5C2A-40D5-A31B-240F28509172Q34235050-8068DC55-31A9-4E59-B25D-40A11AC4CE0FQ34371938-891912C5-562D-4BA5-8021-87B44CFDF154Q35749307-C21DE506-C993-4948-9F41-C47F03592435Q35773340-3A826071-9B86-4FD9-B5DD-4804FC947C91Q36281525-628C7858-E959-4065-A42D-CC127D4F0C16Q36286084-199DC657-C6BB-426D-8CC2-5B1EB326AFCDQ36287149-6CBB181C-4C89-43A5-B01D-FC1E45DCBC98Q36678377-2793EEDB-05D1-4C71-87EE-086F9B674B3BQ37003295-3656C62C-A837-4FC4-BFA3-3C16FF9615B5Q37152908-3CF33CFD-E8BD-4ABF-9573-27E1187E08D0Q38093053-5F9E93FD-EA0E-456F-8D08-BB647FDA7D89Q38151578-7EB90786-0B23-47A5-8190-7549755433B3Q38152967-AA4F28EE-D12E-407E-8349-C29BE3D363DCQ38363756-832EA232-FF75-4FA6-8451-DC3E1D57660EQ38615575-DC55E5B1-0C80-40F6-A656-97633083F05CQ38680945-D40C9610-CE51-4F42-B220-F935F925AF6EQ38921971-86BD9A26-F1DC-4F7F-B96F-A7D7B8CDE605Q38962798-5E97B1A2-48DB-43DE-8E24-7DF9D383D896Q38968155-68C30979-78F0-49C8-8895-1FF448FF07F2Q40565062-7F92A9E0-D828-4D63-813F-68BA0950BC07Q42649795-D5D60D04-C39F-47B1-9005-5686A28C091CQ42682350-0C3F4137-C8D6-477D-9E54-894693D1AFE8Q45661783-AC1BA582-B826-4991-A5F2-512807A5DE39Q55252091-CDBB7995-D38D-4ACF-8782-F60884CF1D2EQ58737536-68B1D998-94B8-42DD-8F2E-FACFEDAD5E3EQ58803120-E551266B-6136-4F7C-A6D3-80DA7FA3AB0D
P2860
Societal preference values for advanced melanoma health states in the United Kingdom and Australia.
description
article científic
@ca
article scientifique
@fr
articolo scientifico
@it
artigo científico
@pt
bilimsel makale
@tr
scientific article published on 14 July 2009
@en
vedecký článok
@sk
vetenskaplig artikel
@sv
videnskabelig artikel
@da
vědecký článek
@cs
name
Societal preference values for ...... United Kingdom and Australia.
@en
Societal preference values for ...... United Kingdom and Australia.
@nl
type
label
Societal preference values for ...... United Kingdom and Australia.
@en
Societal preference values for ...... United Kingdom and Australia.
@nl
prefLabel
Societal preference values for ...... United Kingdom and Australia.
@en
Societal preference values for ...... United Kingdom and Australia.
@nl
P2093
P2860
P356
P1476
Societal preference values for ...... United Kingdom and Australia.
@en
P2093
J Mukherjee
K M Beusterien
M R Middleton
S Kotapati
P2860
P2888
P304
P356
10.1038/SJ.BJC.6605187
P407
P577
2009-07-14T00:00:00Z