ArticleBMJ open2024
Assessment of quality of data submitted for NICE technology appraisals over two decades.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Health utility values associated with pharmaceutical treatment process attributes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2026Pooled it
- Mapping to estimate health state utility: a systematic review of development and limitations.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Pooled it
- How was published evidence used in model-based cost - utility analysis for lung cancer?Health economics review · 2025Article
- The Pharmaceutical Year that was, 2024.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) pioneered the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) processes and methodologies. Technology appraisals (TAs) focus on pharmaceutical products and clinical and economic data, which are presented by the product manufacturers to the NICE appraisal committee for decision-making. Uncertainty in data reduces the chance of a positive outcome from the HTA process or requires a higher discount.
objectiveTo investigate the quality of clinical data (comparator, quality of life (QoL), randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and overall quality of evidence) submitted by the manufacturers to NICE.
designThis retrospective evaluation analysed active TAs published between 2000 and 2019 (up to TA600).
methodsFor all TAs, we extracted data from the Assessment Group and Evidence Review Group reports and Final Appraisal Determinations on (1) the quality of submitted RCTs and (2) the overall quality of evidence submitted for decision-making. For single TAs, we also extracted data and its critique on QoL and comparators. Each category was scored for quality and analysed using descriptive statistics.
results409 TAs were analysed (multiple technology appraisals (MTA)=104, single technology appraisal (STA)=305). In two-thirds of TAs, the overall quality of evidence was either poor (n=224, 55%) or unacceptable (n=41, 10%). In 39% (n=119) of the STAs, the quality of comparative evidence was considered poor, and in 17% (n=51) unacceptable. In 44% (n=135) of STAs, the quality of QoL data was considered poor, 15% (n=47) unacceptable, 33% (n=102) acceptable and 7% (n=21) as good. Over 20 years of longitudinal analysis did not show improvements in the quality of evidence submitted to NICE.
conclusionWe found that the primary components of clinical evidence influencing NICE's decision-making framework were of poor quality. It is essential to continue to generate robust clinical data for premarket and postmarket introduction of medicines into clinical practice to ensure they deliver benefits to patients.
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.