Literature DB >> 25047328

A flexible, multifaceted approach is needed in health technology assessment of PET.

Issa J Dahabreh1, Constantine Gatsonis1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh：

Year:  2014        PMID： 25047328      PMCID： PMC7017395          DOI： 10.2967/jnumed.114.142331

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN： 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


× No keyword cloud information.
  28 in total

1.  Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests.

Authors:  J G Lijmer; B W Mol; S Heisterkamp; G J Bonsel; M H Prins; J H van der Meulen; P M Bossuyt
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-09-15       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Doing more harm than good? Do systematic reviews of PET by health technology assessment agencies provide an appraisal of the evidence that is closer to the truth than the primary data supporting its use?

Authors:  Robert E Ware; Rodney J Hicks
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 3.  Generating evidence for clinical benefit of PET/CT in diagnosing cancer patients.

Authors:  Werner Vach; Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen; Oke Gerke; Wolfgang A Weber
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 10.057

4.  When is measuring sensitivity and specificity sufficient to evaluate a diagnostic test, and when do we need randomized trials?

Authors:  Sarah J Lord; Les Irwig; R John Simes
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2006-06-06       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 5.  Positron emission tomography/computed tomography: the current technology and applications.

Authors:  Erik Mittra; Andrew Quon
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.303

6.  Survey of the methods and reporting practices in published meta-analyses of test performance: 1987 to 2009.

Authors:  Issa J Dahabreh; Mei Chung; Georgios D Kitsios; Teruhiko Terasawa; Gowri Raman; Athina Tatsioni; Annette Tobar; Joseph Lau; Thomas A Trikalinos; Christopher H Schmid
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2013-07-26       Impact factor: 5.273

7.  The promise and realities of comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  Constantine Gatsonis
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-08-30       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Generalizing evidence from randomized clinical trials to target populations: The ACTG 320 trial.

Authors:  Stephen R Cole; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-06-14       Impact factor: 4.897

9.  Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry.

Authors:  Bruce E Hillner; Barry A Siegel; Dawei Liu; Anthony F Shields; Ilana F Gareen; Lucy Hanna; Sharon Hartson Stine; R Edward Coleman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-03-24       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies.

Authors:  Anne W S Rutjes; Johannes B Reitsma; Marcello Di Nisio; Nynke Smidt; Jeroen C van Rijn; Patrick M M Bossuyt
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2006-02-14       Impact factor: 8.262
View more
  2 in total

1.  Added value of cost-utility analysis in simple diagnostic studies of accuracy: (18)F-fluoromethylcholine PET/CT in prostate cancer staging.

Authors:  Oke Gerke; Mads H Poulsen; Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen
Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-01-15

Review 2.  Regulatory Agencies and PET/CT Imaging in the Clinic.

Authors:  Peter Herscovitch
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2022-08-01       Impact factor: 3.955
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.