PubMed · 8494921
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
W F Anderson. 1993. Compassionate exemptions.. https://doi.org/10.1089/hum.1993.4.2-125
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Since the publication of the Revised European-American Classification of Lymphoid Neoplasms in 1994, subsequent updates of the classification of lymphoid neoplasms have been generated through iterative international efforts to achieve broad consensus among hematopathologists, geneticists, molecular scientists, and clinicians. Significant progress has recently been made in the characterization of malignancies of the immune system, with many new insights provided by genomic studies. They have led to this proposal. We have followed the same process that was successfully used for the third and fourth editions of the World Health Organization Classification of Hematologic Neoplasms. The definition, recommended studies, and criteria for the diagnosis of many entities have been extensively refined. Some categories considered provisional have now been upgraded to definite entities. Terminology for some diseases has been revised to adapt nomenclature to the current knowledge of their biology, but these modifications have been restricted to well-justified situations. Major findings from recent genomic studies have impacted the conceptual framework and diagnostic criteria for many disease entities. These changes will have an impact on optimal clinical management. The conclusions of this work are summarized in this report as the proposed International Consensus Classification of mature lymphoid, histiocytic, and dendritic cell tumors.
OBJECTIVE: To develop consensus-based recommendations guiding the conduct of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to improve the comparability and quality of studies. The recommendations apply to analyses intended to inform the allocation of health care resources across a broad range of conditions and interventions. This article, first in a 3-part series, discusses how this goal affects the conduct and use of analyses. The remaining articles will outline methodological and reporting recommendations, respectively. PARTICIPANTS: The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, a nonfederal panel with expertise in CEA, clinical medicine, ethics, and health outcomes measurement, was convened by the US Public Health Service (PHS). EVIDENCE: The panel reviewed the theoretical foundations of CEA, current practices, and alternative procedures for measuring and assigning values to resource use and health outcomes. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The panel met 11 times during 2 1/2 years with PHS staff and methodologists from federal agencies. Working groups brought issues and preliminary recommendations to the full panel for discussion. Draft recommendations were circulated to outside experts and the federal agencies prior to finalization. CONCLUSIONS: The panel's recommendations define a "reference case" cost-effectiveness analysis, a standard set of methods to serve as a point of comparison across studies. The reference case analysis is conducted from the societal perspective and accounts for benefits, harms, and costs to all parties. Although CEA does not reflect every element of importance in health care decisions, the information it provides is critical to informing decisions about the allocation of health care resources.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.