Three Tools to Reduce the Impact of Common Decision-Making Biases When Considering Subgroup Analyses

Value in Health - United Kingdom
doi 10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.1753
Full Text
Abstract

Available in full text

Date
Authors
Publisher

Elsevier BV

Related search

Normal Enough? Tools to Aid Decision Making

International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice
Social Sciences
2016English

Three Simple Rules to Ensure Reasonably Credible Subgroup Analyses

British Medical Journal
Medicine
2015English

Rationality in Medical Decision Making: A Review of the Literature on Doctors’ Decision-Making Biases

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Health PolicyPublic HealthOccupational HealthEnvironmental
2001English

Demystifying the "Sunk Cost Fallacy": When Considering Fixed Cost in Decision-Making Is Reasonable

Journal of Research in Marketing
2017English

Considering the Values Stakeholders Wish to Sustain in Decision Making

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management
DevelopmentMedicinePlanningEnvironmental ScienceGeography
2018English

Decision-Making Heuristics and Biases Across the Life Span

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
GeneticsMolecular BiologyBiochemistryNeuroscienceHistoryPhilosophy of Science
2011English

Cognitive Biases in Binge Eating Disorder: The Hijacking of Decision Making

CNS Spectrums
PsychiatryMental HealthNeurology
2015English

Are Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Tools Useful? An Experimental Comparative Study of Three Methods

European Journal of Operational Research
Information SystemsSimulationManagement ScienceManagementComputer ScienceModelingOperations Research
2018English

Consent, Decision Making and Common Law

Psychiatric Bulletin
1995English

Amanote Research

Note-taking for researchers

Follow Amanote

© 2024 Amaplex Software S.P.R.L. All rights reserved.

Privacy PolicyRefund Policy