Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30651227›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2019

Financial interests of patient organisations contributing to technology assessment at England's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: policy review.

Kate L Mandeville, Rosie Barker, Alice Packham, Charlotte Sowerby, Kielan Yarrow, Hannah Patrick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Financial relationships between patient and consumer representatives and the health industry: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. How are patient inputs considered in HTA? A thematic document analysis of NICE ultra-rare disease appraisals.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Mapping conflict of interests: scoping review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kate L MandevilleCentre for Health Economics in London, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK kate.mandeville@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5525-1574
Rosie BarkerUniversity of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2JD, UK.
Alice PackhamUniversity of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2JD, UK.
Charlotte SowerbyRoyal Free Hospital, London NW3 2QG, UK.
Kielan YarrowDepartment of Psychology, City University, London EC1V 0HB, UK.
Hannah PatrickLewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the prevalence of financial interests among patient organisations contributing to health technology assessment at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England and the extent to which NICE's disclosure policy ensures that decision making committees are aware of these interests.

designPolicy review using accounts, annual reports, and websites of patient organisations; payments declared by pharmaceutical manufacturers on their websites and a centralised database (Disclosure UK); declarations of interests by nominated representatives of patient organisations; and responses from patient organisations.

settingAppraisals of medicines and treatments (technologies) for use in the English and Welsh National Health Service.

participants53 patient organisations contributing to 41 NICE technology appraisals published in 2015 and 2016, with 117 separate occasions that a patient organisation contributed to the appraisal of a technology.

main outcome measuresPrevalence of specific interests (that is, funding from manufacturer(s) of a technology under appraisal or competitor products); proportion of specific interests of which NICE's decision making committees were aware; proportion of unknown specific interests for which disclosure was not required by NICE's policy

results38/53 (72%) patient organisations had accepted funding from the manufacturer(s) of a technology or a competitor product in the same year that they had contributed to the appraisal of that technology or the previous year. Specific interests were present on 92/117 (79%) occasions that patient organisations contributed to appraisals in 2015 and 2016. NICE's decision making committees were aware of less than a quarter of specific interests (30/144; 21%). For nearly two thirds of the specific interests not known to committees (71/114; 62%), disclosure by patient organisations was not required by NICE's policy.

conclusionsFinancial interests are highly prevalent among patient organisations contributing to health technology assessment. NICE should review its disclosure policy to ensure that decision making committees are aware of all relevant interests.

Indexed as

Technology Assessment, BiomedicalConflict of InterestDecision MakingDisclosureEnglandGovernment AgenciesHumansManufacturing IndustryOrganizationsPatient AdvocacyPublic Policy

Identifiers

PMID30651227
PMCPMC6334181

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.