Not playing with a full DEC: why development and evaluation committee methods for appraising new drugs may be inadequate.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Cost-consequence analysis of long-term prophylaxis in the treatment of von Willebrand disease in the Italian context.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2015
   Article
2. A role for two-stage pharmacoeconomic appraisal? Is there a role for interim approval of a drug for reimbursement based on modelling studies with subsequent full approval using phase III data?PharmacoEconomics · 2003
   Article
3. Valuing the effects of sildenafil in erectile dysfunction. Strong assumptions are required to generate a QALY value.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2000
   Article
4. Development and evaluation committees' methods for appraising new drugs. Committee failed to meet aims in producing report on low molecular weight heparins.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2000
   Article
5. DEC methods for appraising new drugs. Are a foundation for the nice appraisal committee.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1999
   Article
6. Shared decision making in a publicly funded health care system. Policies exist to reduce the risk of conflict between individual and society.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1999
   Article
7. Decision-making by surgeons about referral for adjuvant therapy for patients with non-small-cell lung, breast or colorectal cancer: a qualitative study.CMAJ open
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  DEC methods for appraising new drugs. Are a foundation for the nice appraisal committee.1999
• Commented on by
  DEC methods for appraising new drugs. Are justified.1999
• Commented on by
  DEC methods for appraising new drugs. Horizon scanning is important for emerging health technologies.1999
• Commented on by
  DEC methods for appraising new drugs. Paper has errors and omissions.1999
• Commented on by
  Development and evaluation committees' methods for appraising new drugs. Committee failed to meet aims in producing report on low molecular weight heparins.2000

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as