ArticleHealth care management science2004
The 'NICE' approach to technology assessment: an economics perspective.
Article in Health care management science, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Decrementally cost-effective health technologies in non-inferiority studies: A systematic review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Could a policy of provision of hip protectors to elderly nursing home residents result in cost savings in acute hip fracture care? The case of Ontario, Canada.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2007Pooled it
- Some reflections on the use of inappropriate comparators in CEA.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2020Article
- Rethinking cost-effectiveness in the era of zero healthcare spending growth.International journal for equity in health · 2016Article
- Challenges from Variation across Regions in Cost Effectiveness Analysis in Multi-Regional Clinical Trials.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2016Article
- Savings from sub-groups?: Policy guidance and Alzheimer's disease treatments.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2010Article
- Comments on "Simoens, S. Health economic assessment: a methodological primer. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2009, 6, 2950-2966"-New Zealand in fact has no cost-effectiveness threshold.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2010Article
- 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
- Priority setting in health care: Lessons from the experiences of eight countries.International journal for equity in health · 2008Article
- Influencing Drug Prices through Formulary-Based Policies: Lessons from New Zealand.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2007Article
- Information created to evade reality (ICER): things we should not look to for answers.PharmacoEconomics · 2006Review
- The generalisability of pharmacoeconomic studies: issues and challenges ahead.PharmacoEconomics · 2006Review
- Taking account of future technology in cost effectiveness analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has published guidelines for economic evaluations for considering whether new health care technologies contribute to the efficient use of National Health Service resources. The analytical basis of the guidelines is a comparison of the costs and consequences of new and existing methods for dealing with particular conditions using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). However, this fails to provide an explicit and systematic basis for addressing the dual objectives of health maximisation and equitable availability of technologies in the context of a fixed NHS budget. We show that information on the costs and consequences of a particular technology is insufficient to address issues of efficiency of resource use. In addition, information is required about the total resources available and the alternative uses of those resources. Moreover, because these factors are unlikely to be identical for all settings, it is unlikely that the efficiency of using resources to support a new technology will be the same for all settings, even if the cost and consequences of the technology are the same across settings. Instead of improving the health outcomes from NHS resources, we show that using NICE guidelines to inform decisions about new technologies may lead to increased resources allocated to new technology, increased local variations in the use of new technologies and concerns about the sustainability and affordability of public funding for new technologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
14977092What 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.