ArticlePharmacoEconomics2003
NICE methodological guidelines and decision making in the National Health Service in England and Wales.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Three-Year Clinical and Economic Evaluation of Selective Caries Removal and Full Pulpotomy for Extensive Caries: An Exploratory Randomised Controlled Trial.International endodontic journal · 2026Trial
- Mapping the FACT-G cancer-specific quality of life instrument to the EQ-5D and SF-6D.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2013Trial
- Cost-Effectiveness of Community-Based Interventions for Hypertension Prevention and Management: A Protocol for Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Quality Assessment.JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association · 2025Article
- Catalyzing the Translation of Patient-Centered Research Into United States Trauma Care Systems: A Case Example.Medical care · 2021Review
- Routine primary care screening for intimate partner violence and other adverse psychosocial exposures: what's the evidence?BMC family practice · 2016Article
- Persisting without Evidence is a Problem: Suicide Prevention and Other Well-Intentioned Interventions.Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry = Journal de l'Academie canadienne de psychiatrie de l'enfant et de l'adolescent · 2015Article
- Cost effectiveness of darunavir/ritonavir 600/100 mg bid in protease inhibitor-experienced, HIV-1-infected adults in Belgium, Italy, Sweden and the UK.PharmacoEconomics · 2010Article
- Breadth, Depth and Agreement among Provincial Formularies in Canada.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2009Article
- The greatest happiness of the greatest number? Policy actors' perspectives on the limits of economic evaluation as a tool for informing health care coverage decisions in Thailand.BMC health services research · 2008Article
- The funding and use of high-cost medicines in Australia: the example of anti-rheumatic biological medicines.Australia and New Zealand health policy · 2007Article
- Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: when costing less means costing more.PharmacoEconomics · 2007Article
- QALYs: are they helpful to decision makers?PharmacoEconomics · 2006Article
- Information created to evade reality (ICER): things we should not look to for answers.PharmacoEconomics · 2006Review
- Financial impact of two different ways of evaluating early virological response to peginterferon-alpha-2b plus ribavirin therapy in treatment-naive patients with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1.PharmacoEconomics · 2005Review
- Use of quality adjusted life years and life years gained as benchmarks in economic evaluations: a critical appraisal.Health care management science · 2004Article
- The NICE reference case requirement: more pain for what, if any, gain?PharmacoEconomics · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) responds to requests by the Department of Health for guidance on the use of selected new and established technologies in the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales. This paper asks whether the NICE methodological guidelines help NHS decision makers meet the objectives of maximum health improvements from NHS resources and an equitable availability of technologies. The analytical basis of the guidelines is a comparison of the costs and consequences of new and existing methods of dealing with particular conditions using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. We explain why information on the costs and consequences of a particular technology in isolation is insufficient to address issues of efficiency of resource use. We argue that to increase efficiency, decision makers need information on opportunity costs. We show that in the absence of such information decision makers cannot identify the efficient use of resources. Finally we argue that economics provides valid methods for identifying the maximisation of health improvements for a given allocation of resources and we describe an alternative practical approach to this problem. Drawing on the experience of Ontario, Canada where an approach similar to that proposed by NICE has been in use for almost a decade, and recent reports about the consequences of NICE decisions to date, we conclude that instead of increasing the efficiency or equity of the use of NHS resources, NICE methodological guidelines may lead to: uncontrolled increases in NHS expenditures without evidence of any increase in total health improvements; increased inequities in the availability of services; and concerns about the sustainability of public funding for new technologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
12558466What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.