6.
Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob E, Ellis A, Vass C
. Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018; 37(2):201-226.
PMC: 6386055.
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2.
View
7.
Bridges J, Hauber A, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser L, Regier D
. Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011; 14(4):403-13.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013.
View
8.
Hauber A, Gonzalez J, Groothuis-Oudshoorn C, Prior T, Marshall D, Cunningham C
. Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016; 19(4):300-15.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004.
View
9.
Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Muhlbacher A, Regier D
. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013; 16(1):3-13.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223.
View
10.
Tervonen T, Veldwijk J, Payne K, Ng X, Levitan B, Lackey L
. Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment in Medical Product Decision Making: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force. Value Health. 2023; 26(4):449-460.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.12.006.
View
11.
Bridges J, de Bekker-Grob E, Hauber B, Heidenreich S, Janssen E, Bast A
. A Roadmap for Increasing the Usefulness and Impact of Patient-Preference Studies in Decision Making in Health: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force. Value Health. 2023; 26(2):153-162.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.12.004.
View
12.
Postmus D, Mavris M, Hillege H, Salmonson T, Ryll B, Plate A
. Incorporating patient preferences into drug development and regulatory decision making: Results from a quantitative pilot study with cancer patients, carers, and regulators. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2015; 99(5):548-54.
DOI: 10.1002/cpt.332.
View
13.
Postmus D, Richard S, Bere N, van Valkenhoef G, Galinsky J, Low E
. Individual Trade-Offs Between Possible Benefits and Risks of Cancer Treatments: Results from a Stated Preference Study with Patients with Multiple Myeloma. Oncologist. 2017; 23(1):44-51.
PMC: 5759823.
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0257.
View
14.
Ho M, Gonzalez J, Lerner H, Neuland C, Whang J, McMurry-Heath M
. Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surg Endosc. 2015; 29(10):2984-93.
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-4044-2.
View
15.
Benz H, Caldwell B, Ruiz J, Saha A, Ho M, Christopher S
. Patient-Centered Identification of Meaningful Regulatory Endpoints for Medical Devices to Treat Parkinson's Disease. MDM Policy Pract. 2021; 6(1):23814683211021380.
PMC: 8255597.
DOI: 10.1177/23814683211021380.
View
16.
Hauber B, Mange B, Zhou M, Chaudhuri S, Benz H, Caldwell B
. Parkinson's Patients' Tolerance for Risk and Willingness to Wait for Potential Benefits of Novel Neurostimulation Devices: A Patient-Centered Threshold Technique Study. MDM Policy Pract. 2021; 6(1):2381468320978407.
PMC: 7818008.
DOI: 10.1177/2381468320978407.
View
17.
Janssen E, Benz H, Tsai J, Bridges J
. Identifying and prioritizing concerns associated with prosthetic devices for use in a benefit-risk assessment: a mixed-methods approach. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2018; 15(5):385-398.
DOI: 10.1080/17434440.2018.1470505.
View
18.
Le J, Bicket A, Janssen E, Grover D, Radhakrishnan S, Vold S
. Prioritizing outcome preferences in patients with ocular hypertension and open-angle glaucoma using best-worst scaling. Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2020; 2(6):367-373.
PMC: 7192342.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ogla.2019.08.007.
View
19.
Tarver M, Neuland C
. Integrating Patient Perspectives into Medical Device Regulatory Decision Making to Advance Innovation in Kidney Disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2021; 16(4):636-638.
PMC: 8092069.
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.11510720.
View
20.
Stothers Rosenberg S, Ng X, Mansfield C, Poulos C, Peay H, Lee T
. Adaptation of the WOMAC for Use in a Patient Preference Study. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2023; 57(4):702-711.
PMC: 10105612.
DOI: 10.1007/s43441-023-00510-8.
View