Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement - Wikidata - awgldk - TriplyDB

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q56880243

about

Cost-effectiveness of strategies to improve the utilization and provision of maternal and newborn health care in low-income and lower-middle-income countries: a systematic review Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of brief guided parent-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy and solution-focused brief therapy for treatment of childhood anxiety disorders: a randomised controlled trial.A health economic evaluation of screening and treatment in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis Cost-effectiveness and affordability of community mobilisation through women's groups and quality improvement in health facilities (MaiKhanda trial) in Malawi The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the PAtient-Centred Team (PACT) model: study protocol of a prospective matched control before-and-after study.Projected economic evaluation of the national implementation of a hypothetical HIV vaccination program among adolescents in South Africa, 2012.Spending of HIV resources in Asia and Eastern Europe: systematic review reveals the need to shift funding allocations towards priority populations.The Case for Adolescent HIV Vaccination in South Africa: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Cost-effectiveness analysis of axitinib through a probabilistic decision model.The modelled cost-effectiveness of cognitive dissonance for the prevention of anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa in adolescent girls in Australia.A systematic review of economic evaluations of treatments for patients with epilepsy.Economic impact of medication error: a systematic review.Can chronic disease be managed through integrated care cost-effectively? Evidence from a systematic review.Economics of Early Warning Scores for identifying clinical deterioration-a systematic review.A protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluation studies conducted on neonatal systemic infections in South Asia.An economic evaluation of a multicomponent self-management intervention for adults with epilepsy (ZMILE study).Cost-effectiveness of dedicated dietitians for hyperphosphatemia management among hemodialysis patients in Lebanon: results from the Nutrition Education for Management of Osteodystrophy trial.Core outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials in nonspecific low back pain.Sourcing and Using Appropriate Health State Utility Values in Economic Models in Health Care.Protocol for the economic evaluation of a complex intervention to improve the mental health of maltreated infants and children in foster care in the UK (The BeST? services trial).The "ComPAS Trial" combined treatment model for acute malnutrition: study protocol for the economic evaluation.A community-based physical activity intervention to prevent mobility-related disability for retired older people (REtirement in ACTion (REACT)): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.The Price of Prevention: Cost Effectiveness of Biomedical HIV Prevention Strategies in South Africa Health Technology Optimization Analysis: Conceptual Approach and Illustrative Application Cost-effectiveness of sacral nerve stimulation and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update Acceptability to patients, carers and clinicians of an mHealth platform for the management of Parkinson's disease (PD_Manager): study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial Cost-consequence analysis of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol 92/22 mcg for the management of COPD in the Spanish NHS Economic evaluation of brief cognitive behavioural therapy for social activation in recent-onset psychosis

P2860

Q26864283-BF70CAEC-4EC8-44E4-A900-058293995881 Q33831520-6258C0EB-C862-4B1D-8307-C0C570FFEE95 Q34981275-C04DE500-A85D-40DC-84F7-BF3ED156C51E Q34986875-8501A2E2-8E35-4FC9-8AA9-9AB2CBEC4076 Q35820665-968552B4-CF47-4D79-902B-C46621A7E7FB Q35990326-D111AA08-9122-464E-B75E-21A3E3AC2F88 Q37605568-DFE1B34F-CA4D-4D2B-B949-32130C6C28EF Q37624067-F402FF5F-A4A6-43B6-BCB4-DD89E309BD26 Q38469815-0D181F26-01A1-4DC4-AA53-856871A62ED5 Q38742323-B7D0546C-544E-42D9-9C28-33C6281FD479 Q39093607-47122AB3-5DD8-4DDA-8741-02C7CC6393F9 Q39179700-BD12F8ED-E344-43D2-B1C0-32ACDD1775CA Q39287223-B5185F0B-BB1B-47AD-8A34-1FD68C447F13 Q39350302-565F95EB-AA23-4633-A17F-D80D8964CD4C Q47104892-C674B7D4-9DB9-4D26-997E-1FEA77F89D38 Q47559103-C23098DC-E9A4-44A6-A2D9-F9BA857AB431 Q48210489-8F3F70F6-F868-477E-A413-5BA2C8746115 Q48546193-326C1774-874A-4E7C-9C0A-AA6EBB43AB6A Q50100257-46CABB8A-25C4-4C55-9566-7056C0ED8E4F Q52355578-481CFB3F-77A7-4EA8-9D91-1969FB5772CF Q52565794-5125BF54-1867-49E4-BC4B-2B69B24EAF05 Q52582437-12846083-B44C-4B72-ADE7-A3A05CE4731C Q56910975-6DCE2564-EC12-4F3C-BC7A-026F59DF46AC Q57131293-A3ABA2E8-BD50-441E-B985-5BF61478A7CA Q57296406-1B3AB6D5-7657-4048-A55F-4953B2BDA88C Q57491117-CDA3CF57-3EAE-44CF-A98C-08A6BFEA0CB1 Q58740541-0D688B8A-487A-4CA5-81C1-F001D1B52AE1 Q58763035-AB91E691-22A6-4A02-9B9D-627FAD2A1D76 Q59136847-BC89FA5F-6227-41CA-A9EB-FE2CB2FD5CD4

P2860

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q56880243

description

наукова стаття, опублікована в березні 2013

@uk

name

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

@en

type

label

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

@en

prefLabel

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

@en

P1433

Q56880243-AA524594-19D0-428B-837F-F9976996E42E

P1476

Q56880243-FDBA7B1F-C4B1-4A53-92E1-4E795EA38821

P2093

Q56880243-021FE576-903C-45D5-817A-530B3D18D033

Q56880243-29124986-514D-4E07-B51F-60E745C4A896

Q56880243-50C814DF-4C3E-4983-AB56-41C311412E5B

Q56880243-C4CC34DC-B890-4211-A6ED-1D67A1BFE6AA

Q56880243-CD43A8F6-129E-41A5-A528-47BB4638B190

Q56880243-D02CC95A-0BAD-41EC-9038-2EE5D0BF1E77

P2860

Q56880243-0E4DAD21-FD46-4B9F-9970-730DC34BDA6C

Q56880243-1DD6C157-2FE3-4466-A613-08CAED7CB802

Q56880243-4472F37A-C0AF-40E8-AB05-67617B74167D

Q56880243-4964C1A6-2E17-420B-A471-72AA3BB13FDD

Q56880243-8EEE34B5-1F85-4A67-8B7D-2C46E2615F4B

Q56880243-99C478A1-0F08-40CA-894F-E5DED7437584

Q56880243-9F0810AD-B2BD-4533-9C7A-94C5FC2138C7

Q56880243-A1D651A7-619F-4863-B7AD-A1DC8FC30715

Q56880243-A2B8E8FD-EB02-4F24-B9C7-274B3DCF015F

Q56880243-B0F7AC69-2813-4C44-BA15-07E4158D1911

P2888

Q56880243-D58E60B4-AF33-4533-97C5-4F702A2006C5

P304

Q56880243-2BC1E7CC-A2A8-48CB-B34D-9B9FB63E404E

P31

Q56880243-B5490553-DD56-4E5F-8A25-DC999D49BAF2

P356

Q56880243-4D6F365A-C148-4495-94AA-63118ABF81E7

P407

Q56880243-A4D208BD-E72D-429E-9EEB-3306DE384F8E

P433

Q56880243-C7D28C1A-E2B9-4550-9CE0-1A88FA32F44D

P478

Q56880243-1397A4BA-475B-4563-A5E1-9FB54B4F58D8

P50

Q56880243-31E41238-5AC4-405C-9B50-31779D7799C1

Q56880243-4115115F-05B0-4DC4-99AF-AFEAF214FE0B

Q56880243-9612E4EA-7D9B-450D-9B6B-F40891D36DE6

Q56880243-9D4B88AC-775F-47BE-A727-24DC1B07DB07

P577

Q56880243-F225069F-92E5-4CF0-A15E-B1E7E07E2546

P6179

Q56880243-05297024-68E2-48FB-A425-68A252CFA4B7

P698

Q56880243-BE698466-C747-4EBC-9B49-CA00A6F7F2C2

P932

Q56880243-BED42347-F541-42D4-B5AA-BF9DA12C1FDD

P356

P1433

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation

P1476

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

@en

P2093

Andrew H Briggs

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Chris Carswell

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Elizabeth Loder

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Federico Augustovski

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Josephine Mauskopf

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Michael Drummond

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P2860

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

Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines.

A reappraisal of economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Science or marketing?

The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976-1997.

Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review

Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting.

Design, execution, interpretation, and reporting of economic evaluation studies in obstetrics.

Quality of abstracts of papers reporting original cost-effectiveness analyses.

Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report.

Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party.

P2888

P304

6

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P31

scholarly article

P356

10.1186/1478-7547-11-6

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P407

P433

1

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P478

11

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P50

P577

2013-03-25T00:00:00Z

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime

P6179

1049397459

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P698

23531194

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P932

3607888

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string