ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2025
Methods used in early value assessments for nice: a scoping review.
Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Methods used in early value assessments for nice: a scoping review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England introduced early value assessments (EVAs) as an evidence-based method of accelerating access to promising health technologies that could address unmet needs and contribute to the National Health Service's Long Term Plan. However, there are currently no published works considering differences and commonalities in methods used between Assessment Reports for EVAs.
methodsThis rapid scoping review included all completed EVAs published on the NICE website up to 23 July 2024. One reviewer screened potentially relevant records for eligibility, checked by a second reviewer. Pairs of independent reviewers extracted information on the methods used in included EVAs using a prepiloted form; these were checked for accuracy. Data were described in graphical or tabular format with an accompanying narrative summary.
resultsIn total, seventeen EVA Reports of sixteen EVAs were included in this scoping review. Five Reports did not specify how many reviewers undertook screening, whereas five did not report data extraction methods. Five EVAs planned to conduct meta-analyses, nine planned narrative syntheses, and seven planned narrative summaries. Eleven conceptual decision models were presented, with available evidence used to construct cost-utility analyses (
conclusionFuture EVA Reports should enhance the transparency of the methods used. Furthermore, EVAs could provide opportunities for the adoption of innovative methodological approaches and more flexible communication between EVA authors and key stakeholders, including patients and clinicians, companies, and NICE.
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.