Bibliography

Filters: First Letter Of Title is P  [Clear All Filters]
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O [P] Q R S T U V W X Y Z   [Show ALL]
P
PubMed® Online Training. Bethesda: U.S. National Library of Medicine; 2010.
Merkley C. PubMed is slightly more sensitive but more time intensive to search than Ovid MEDLINE. Evidence Based Library & Information Practice. 2011;(6).
Katchamart W, Faulkner A, Feldman B, Tomlinson G, Bombardier C. PubMed had a higher sensitivity than Ovid-MEDLINE in the search for systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(7):805-7. Abstract
PubMed Clinical Queries. U.S. National Library of Medicine; 2012.
PubMed Central (PMC). Vol 2012. Bethesda: National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine; 2000.
Pubmed Biomedical Health Technology Search Hedge . U.S. National Library of Medicine; 2012. Abstract
PubMed - Technology Assessment, Biomedical , Search Hedge. U.S. National Library of Medicine; 2012.
PubMed. U.S. National Library of Medicine; 1996. Abstract
Mitton C, Smith N, Peacock S, Evoy B, Abelson J. Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review. Health Policy. 2009;91(3):219-28. Abstract
Krebs K, Raghib A, Baldwin T, Brownsword R, Calman K, Godfrey C, et al. Public health ethical issues.. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics; 2007. Abstract
Kreis J, Schmidt H. Public engagement in health technology assessment and coverage decisions: a study of experiences in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2013;38(1):89-122. Abstract
Wodak J. Public engagement in choosing health priorities. CMAJ. 2011;183(2):227.
Public and patient involvement. Southampton: NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC); 2014. Abstract
Pubgle. Pubgle; 2012. Abstract
Pubget. Pubget Corp ; 2008. Abstract
Hausner E, Guddat C, Hermanns T, Lampert U, Waffenschmidt S. Prospective comparison of search strategies for systematic reviews: an objective approach yielded higher sensitivity than a conceptual one. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016. Abstract
Gutman SI, Piper M, Grant MD, Basch E, Oliansky DM, Aronson N. Progression-Free Survival: What Does It Mean for Psychological Well-Being or Quality of Life?. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013. Abstract
PriTec. Santiago de Compostela : Galician Health Technology Assessment Agency (avalia-t); 2012. Abstract
Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, et al. PRISMA-S extension: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Version 5, March 02, 2020..; 2020.
Oortwijn WJ, Vondeling H, van Barneveld T, van Vugt C, Bouter LM. Priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands: principles and practice. Health Policy. 2002;62(3):227-42. Abstract
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012. Abstract
Sampson M, McGowan J, Lefebvre C, Moher D, Grimshaw J. PRESS: Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2008.
McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS – Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Explanation and Elaboration (PRESS E&E). Ottawa: CADTH; 2016.
McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40-6. Abstract
Rethlefsen ML, Koffel J, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Group PR. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis Search Extension (PRISMA-S) 2019: Explanation and Elaboration. Version 1.0, March 20, 2019..; 2019.