Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis.
about
Can broader diffusion of value-based insurance design increase benefits from US health care without increasing costs? Evidence from a computer simulation modelGenetic testing and common disorders in a public health framework: how to assess relevance and possibilities. Background Document to the ESHG recommendations on genetic testing and common disordersBias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review.Are decisions using cost-utility analyses robust to choice of SF-36/SF-12 preference-based algorithm?The quality of economic evaluations of ultra-orphan drugs in Europe - a systematic reviewProstate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen: A guide to the guidelinesMore frequent, more costly? Health economic modelling aspects of monitoring glaucoma patients in EnglandAcceptance of health technology assessment submissions with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios above the cost-effectiveness thresholdCost-effectiveness of a central venous catheter care bundleClearing up the hazy road from bench to bedside: a framework for integrating the fourth hurdle into translational medicineEconomic evaluations of psychosocial interventions in cancer: a systematic review.Possible Impact of Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) on Decision Making for Cancer Screening in Hong Kong: A Systematic Review.Cost effectiveness of perindopril in reducing cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary artery disease using data from the EUROPA study.Clinical and cost-effectiveness analysis of an open label, single-centre, randomised trial of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) versus percutaneous myocardial laser revascularisation (PMR) in patients with refractory angina pectoris: The SPiRiT trial.Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for the treatment of major depressive disorder in primary care. A systematic review.Cost effectiveness in low- and middle-income countries: a review of the debates surrounding decision rules.Comparing estimates of cost effectiveness submitted to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) by different organisations: retrospective study.An official American Thoracic Society research statement: comparative effectiveness research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.The social value of a QALY: raising the bar or barring the raise?Using QALYs in telehealth evaluations: a systematic review of methodology and transparency.Reconstruction versus conservative treatment after rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament: cost effectiveness analysis.Rationing of total knee replacement: a cost-effectiveness analysis on a large trial data setCost-effectiveness analysis of fidaxomicin versus vancomycin in Clostridium difficile infectionDecision-making in healthcare: a practical application of partial least square path modelling to coverage of newborn screening programmes.A costly revolution for a subgroup of patients with metastatic melanoma.Cost effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in two different European healthcare settingsMeasuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-makingReview of NICE's recommendations, 1999-2005.Economic evaluation of agomelatine relative to other antidepressants for treatment of major depressive disorders in Greece.Economic evaluation of ivabradine in the treatment of chronic heart failure in Greece.Cost effectiveness of mirabegron compared with tolterodine extended release for the treatment of adults with overactive bladder in the United KingdomCost-utility and cost-effectiveness studies of telemedicine, electronic, and mobile health systems in the literature: a systematic review.A think aloud study comparing the validity and acceptability of discrete choice and best worst scaling methods.Expanded HIV testing in low-prevalence, high-income countries: a cost-effectiveness analysis for the United KingdomHow much will Herceptin really cost?Cost effectiveness of the type II Boston keratoprosthesisRole of centralized review processes for making reimbursement decisions on new health technologies in Europe.Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting.Pharmacoeconomics: friend or foe?Governance of preventive Health Intervention and On time Verification of its Efficiency: the GIOVE Study.
P2860
Q21144630-6BA4F78E-CB36-4893-9847-7193DE700982Q22330767-A670CA49-82BF-46A5-9673-97B99B333C84Q24541365-D9BEEFAC-98B2-4295-B0D9-3F4B3DB71B1CQ24805172-8F148451-50B0-496A-8CCB-A7B1DF56D43DQ26801751-606422DB-F5DA-4D8F-8951-C5B55682BA95Q28070347-80B67DD0-A82C-40A0-93BF-74869FE15469Q28597031-7190D3AE-6BAE-421B-AFD5-2394843F6362Q28607835-3B63082D-34CF-449E-A0E4-B5445E6A4C65Q28749245-FC185718-8263-4976-8416-E6166CDA3926Q28756810-579D8416-224E-4020-8567-F92293C453E8Q30251940-474113DB-FB09-4F23-917D-5BDD13D878DEQ30391631-F398C727-8139-4A20-9BF9-859FC0A90173Q33265015-74573024-B4B1-44AF-81AD-FEFFFE61F889Q33347861-A7011B57-9983-410F-9F67-F1CC3289B1D8Q33524926-A42A200E-7B27-43AB-B0A7-BB105B9EAB3BQ33606843-ED92293B-5795-4E5F-A3CE-AAAF74548D44Q33709566-DC24D913-1542-4C90-B5E9-34D38BB1564DQ33735726-B1D285C0-BDC4-46B7-BDBF-84015E042ED9Q33790422-BA3D8B0A-337A-4927-B6D1-FAB4B81108FBQ34042483-EF30FB0C-506C-40E1-A00A-05377343469BQ34078509-E34B5607-046C-45CA-A288-651C58BD8740Q34145282-AD913425-F718-4824-8ABE-87F74A5D9BE1Q34331045-B7DAF0D1-E055-4257-AEE8-6DD290056A7CQ34362510-B0E03D8E-69D1-4A07-BB1B-A3DA830DC693Q34601611-F8782B0E-6ABA-4432-92B6-B0A512CDA312Q34604533-1035B192-AAE4-4AD9-8251-0F51A81E2372Q34614168-4DC44190-E185-4BC9-B64B-A94ED51930B2Q34647220-18E42FBC-3CFC-46BB-8863-D2CAE10B5A4AQ34714511-786CF640-0C1A-4C55-BB28-A3F9BFB03400Q34728065-672EE011-668D-49F2-9CAE-54A5AB6A7B77Q34990256-0CDEAE55-C4C9-4FD2-A6C1-4579DA254365Q35034647-3B63B3F0-FD13-4ADD-9804-BD0D14D3E087Q35155987-F713434F-2C12-4BBC-9A0F-E71FFB111340Q35157015-19CDC713-ECF2-42EE-A52A-50F740C50B44Q35167009-A10A0DB8-BED5-4C3F-9AD6-2E52ADD86E2BQ35227244-CF758DA8-0511-4318-812A-176797D5ACE2Q35454428-3D387B8C-10D9-4513-86F8-5B67CA8D4D73Q35590950-EBB9E097-5695-454F-B5E4-F750CBC2816DQ35638247-E004D805-0A91-4414-A58B-EF7B5A04B03BQ35838225-6115D314-FB2E-4B33-90EF-F3FB795F0CA7
P2860
Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis.
description
2004 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2004 թուականի Մայիսին հրատարակուած գիտական յօդուած
@hyw
2004 թվականի մայիսին հրատարակված գիտական հոդված
@hy
2004年の論文
@ja
2004年論文
@yue
2004年論文
@zh-hant
2004年論文
@zh-hk
2004年論文
@zh-mo
2004年論文
@zh-tw
2004年论文
@wuu
name
Does NICE have a cost-effectiv ...... ons? A binary choice analysis.
@ast
Does NICE have a cost-effectiv ...... ons? A binary choice analysis.
@en
Does NICE have a cost-effectiv ...... ons? A binary choice analysis.
@nl
type
label
Does NICE have a cost-effectiv ...... ons? A binary choice analysis.
@ast
Does NICE have a cost-effectiv ...... ons? A binary choice analysis.
@en
Does NICE have a cost-effectiv ...... ons? A binary choice analysis.
@nl
prefLabel
Does NICE have a cost-effectiv ...... ons? A binary choice analysis.
@ast
Does NICE have a cost-effectiv ...... ons? A binary choice analysis.
@en
Does NICE have a cost-effectiv ...... ons? A binary choice analysis.
@nl
P356
P1433
P1476
Does NICE have a cost-effectiv ...... ons? A binary choice analysis.
@en
P2093
David Parkin
Nancy Devlin
P304
P356
10.1002/HEC.864
P407
P577
2004-05-01T00:00:00Z