ArticlePharmacoEconomics2010
Access with evidence development in the UK: past experience, current initiatives and future potential.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Acknowledging patient heterogeneity in economic evaluation : a systematic literature review.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Pooled it
- When does NICE recommend the use of health technologies within a programme of evidence development? : a systematic review of NICE guidance.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Pooled it
- Coping with uncertainty on health decisions: assessing new solutions.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2012Article
- Translating comparative effectiveness research into clinical practice: the UK experience.Drugs · 2012Article
- Role of centralized review processes for making reimbursement decisions on new health technologies in Europe.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2011Article
- When to wait for more evidence? Real options analysis in proton therapy.The oncologist · 2011Article
- Risk sharing arrangements for pharmaceuticals: potential considerations and recommendations for European payers.BMC health services research · 2010Review
- Single technology appraisal at the UK National Institute for Health and clinical excellence: a source of evidence and analysis for decision making internationally.PharmacoEconomics · 2010Article
- Principles of design of access with evidence development approaches: a consensus statement from the Banff Summit.PharmacoEconomics · 2010Article
- Access with evidence development: the US experience.PharmacoEconomics · 2010Article
- We know accurately only when we know little.PharmacoEconomics · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Access with evidence development (AED) describes the general approach of linking some form of access to the healthcare market with the generation of additional evidence relating to the value of the healthcare intervention under evaluation, with an explicit aim of aiding future decision making. A number of health systems around the world are interested in the potential for such schemes. This article looks in detail at the potential for some form of AED in the UK, focusing on the two major decision-making bodies: the Scottish Medicines Consortium in Scotland and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in England and Wales. We consider past experience with these approaches and current initiatives that are exploring their potential, and speculate as to how these schemes might develop in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20085392What 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.