Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12558466›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2003

NICE methodological guidelines and decision making in the National Health Service in England and Wales.

Amiram Gafni, Stephen Birch, NICE, National Health Service

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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 · 2015
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Breadth, Depth and Agreement among Provincial Formularies in Canada.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2009
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Amiram GafniDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Stephen Birch
NICE
National Health Service

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Decision Making, OrganizationalHealth Planning GuidelinesHumansNational Health ProgramsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.