메뉴 건너뛰기
PharmacoEconomics
Volumn 34, Issue 7, 2016, Pages 625-627
Why Cancer?
Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]
Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;
EID: 84970004211     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-016-0413-0     Document Type: Editorial
Times cited : (42)
References (5)
  • 1
    • 84975611033 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Cancer drugs fund 2.0: a missed opportunity? Pharmacoeconomics
    • McCabe C, Paul A, Fell G, Paulden M. Cancer drugs fund 2.0: a missed opportunity? Pharmacoeconomics. Epub 22 March 2016.
    • (2016) Epub , pp. 22
    • McCabe, C.1    Paul, A.2    Fell, G.3    Paulden, M.4
  • 2
    • 84877982044 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • How much should the NHS pay for a QALY?
    • Haycox A. How much should the NHS pay for a QALY? Pharmacoconomics. 2013;31:357–9.
    • (2013) Pharmacoconomics. , vol.31 , pp. 357-359
    • Haycox, A.1
  • 3
    • 84877609810 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Methods for the estimation of the NICE cost effectiveness threshold
    • York: University of York, Centre for Health Economics
    • Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M, et al. Methods for the estimation of the NICE cost effectiveness threshold. CHE Research Paper 81. York: University of York, Centre for Health Economics; 2013.
    • (2013) CHE Research Paper , vol.81
    • Claxton, K.1    Martin, S.2    Soares, M.3
  • 4
    • 61849098413 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Should NICE’s threshold range for cost per QALY be raised? Yes
    • PID: 19171561
    • Towse A. Should NICE’s threshold range for cost per QALY be raised? Yes. BMJ. 2009;338:b181.
    • (2009) BMJ. , vol.338 , pp. b181
    • Towse, A.1
  • 5
    • 59049097511 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Should NICE’s threshold range for cost per QALY be raised? No
    • Rafferty J. Should NICE’s threshold range for cost per QALY be raised? No. BMJ. 2009;338:b185.
    • (2009) BMJ. , vol.338 , pp. b185
    • Rafferty, J.1

* 이 정보는 Elsevier사의 SCOPUS DB에서 KISTI가 분석하여 추출한 것입니다.