Skip to main content
Top
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 9/2008

01-09-2008 | Editorial

NICE’s 2008 Methods Guide

Sensible Consolidation or Opportunities Missed?

Author: Mark Sculpher

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 9/2008

Login to get access

Excerpt

In the spring of 2007, the Centre for Health Technology Evaluation at the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) embarked on a process of updating its Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. The new guide was subsequently published in June 2008.[1] As part of the process, a series of briefing papers was commissioned from the NICE Decision Support Unit (DSU), a network of academics funded by NICE and based at several universities in England. These documents were sought to support the Methodology Working Party, which was responsible for drafting the new guide. They also provided major inputs to a number of workshops held on key methods topics during spring and summer 2007 with invited methodologists and NICE stakeholders. …
Literature
1.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf [Accessed 2008 Aug 14] National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​nice.​org.​uk/​media/​B52/​A7/​TAMethodsGuideUp​datedJune2008.​pdf [Accessed 2008 Aug 14]
2.
go back to reference Brazier J. Valuing health states for use in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 769–779PubMedCrossRef Brazier J. Valuing health states for use in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 769–779PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Claxton K. Exploring uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 781–798PubMedCrossRef Claxton K. Exploring uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 781–798PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 733–744PubMedCrossRef McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 733–744PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Miners A. Estimating ‘costs’ for cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 745–751PubMedCrossRef Miners A. Estimating ‘costs’ for cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 745–751PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Sculpher M. Subgroups and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 799–806PubMedCrossRef Sculpher M. Subgroups and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 799–806PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Sutton A, Ades AE, Cooper N, et al., on behalf of the NICE Decision Support Unit. Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 753–767PubMedCrossRef Sutton A, Ades AE, Cooper N, et al., on behalf of the NICE Decision Support Unit. Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 753–767PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/TAP_Methods.pdf [Accessed 2008 Aug 14] National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​nice.​org.​uk/​niceMedia/​pdf/​TAP_​Methods.​pdf [Accessed 2008 Aug 14]
9.
go back to reference Earnshaw J, Lewis G. NICE guide to the methods of technology appraisal: pharmaceutical industry perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 725–727PubMedCrossRef Earnshaw J, Lewis G. NICE guide to the methods of technology appraisal: pharmaceutical industry perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 725–727PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Longworth L, Longson C. NICE methodology for technology appraisals: cutting edge or tried and trusted? Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 729–732PubMedCrossRef Longworth L, Longson C. NICE methodology for technology appraisals: cutting edge or tried and trusted? Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 729–732PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal: draft for consulation. London: NICE 2007 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal: draft for consulation. London: NICE 2007
12.
go back to reference Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day NA. A comparison of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann Int Med 2001; 33: 358–370 Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day NA. A comparison of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann Int Med 2001; 33: 358–370
13.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the single technology appraisal (STA) process. London: NICE 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/staprocess.pdf [Accessed 2008 Aug 14] National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the single technology appraisal (STA) process. London: NICE 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​nice.​org.​uk/​niceMedia/​pdf/​staprocess.​pdf [Accessed 2008 Aug 14]
14.
go back to reference Hutton J, Trueman P, Henshall C. Coverage with evidence development: an examination of conceptual and policy issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007; 23: 425–432PubMedCrossRef Hutton J, Trueman P, Henshall C. Coverage with evidence development: an examination of conceptual and policy issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007; 23: 425–432PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Tunis SR, Pearson SD. Coverage options for promising technologies: Medicare’s ‘coverage with evidence development’. Health Aff 2006; 25 (5): 1218–1230CrossRef Tunis SR, Pearson SD. Coverage options for promising technologies: Medicare’s ‘coverage with evidence development’. Health Aff 2006; 25 (5): 1218–1230CrossRef
Metadata
Title
NICE’s 2008 Methods Guide
Sensible Consolidation or Opportunities Missed?
Author
Mark Sculpher
Publication date
01-09-2008
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 9/2008
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826090-00001

Other articles of this Issue 9/2008

PharmacoEconomics 9/2008 Go to the issue