ReviewApplied health economics and health policy2018
Use of Expert Judgement Across NICE Guidance-Making Programmes: A Review of Current Processes and Suitability of Existing Tools to Support the Use of Expert Elicitation.
Review in Applied health economics and health policy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Applications of Structural Expert Elicitations for Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Review Update.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
- The Use of Expert Elicitation among Computational Modeling Studies in Health Research: A Systematic Review.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Pooled it
- Integrating Structured Expert Elicitation with External Evidence to Inform Earlier Reimbursement Decisions: A Norwegian Case Study of Selpercatinib for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Article
- Structured Expert Elicitation to Inform Long-Term Survival Extrapolations in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Article
- Recommended methods for the collection of clinical expert judgment in rare diseases: Generating evidence to support reimbursement of orphan drugs.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
- Co-designing a Structured Expert Elicitation with Clinicians to Enhance Health Care Decision Making in Exercise Oncology.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Article
- Methods to Quantify the Importance of Parameters for Model Updating and Distributional Adaptation.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- NICE Approaches to Expert Opinion Evidence in Highly Specialised Technologies: Time to Change? Evidence Assessment Group Perspective.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Article
- Increasing transparency in indirect treatment comparisons: is selecting effect modifiers the missing part of the puzzle? A review of methodological approaches and critical considerations.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2023Review
- Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2022Article
- Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2022Article
- An Expert Elicitation on the Effects of a Ban on Menthol Cigarettes and Cigars in the United States.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2021Article
- Developing a reference protocol for structured expert elicitation in health-care decision-making: a mixed-methods study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to review current use of experts within National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance-making programmes, identify improvements in use of expert judgement, and to assess tools and protocols to support the elicitation of information from experts for use by NICE.
methodsThe study comprised a review of NICE process guides; semi-structured interviews with individuals representing each NICE guidance-making programme and a comparison of the suitability of currently available tools and protocols for expert elicitation to the requirements of NICE programmes.
resultsInformation elicited from experts and the way in which it is used varies across NICE guidance-making programmes. Experts' involvement can be as intensive as being a member of a committee and thus having direct influence on recommendations or limited one-off consultations on specific parameters. We identified 16 tools for expert elicitation that were potentially relevant. None fully met the requirements of NICE, although an existing tool could be potentially adapted. Ongoing research to develop a reference protocol for expert elicitation in healthcare decision making may be of use in future.
conclusionsNICE uses expert judgement across all its guidance-making programmes, but its uses vary considerably. There is no currently available tool for expert elicitation suitable for use by NICE. However, adaptation of an existing tool or ongoing research in the area could address this in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.