Decision-making by the NICE Interventional Procedures Advisory Committee

被引:4
|
作者
Carroll, C. [1 ]
Dickson, R. [2 ]
Boland, A. [2 ]
Houten, R. [2 ]
Walton, M. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sheffield, Sch Hlth & Related Res, Regent St, Sheffield S1 4DA, S Yorkshire, England
[2] Univ Liverpool, Inst Populat Hlth Sci, Liverpool, Merseyside, England
[3] Univ York, Ctr Reviews & Disseminat, York, N Yorkshire, England
关键词
D O I
10.1002/bjs.11334
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background This study explored the evidence base for recommendations by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Interventional Procedures Advisory Committee, the only NICE committee not to consider cost. The four potential recommendations are: Standard Arrangements (can be performed as routine practice in the NHS); Special Arrangements (can be done under certain conditions); Research Only; and Do Not Do. Methods Quantitative content analysis of data extracted from all published Interventional Procedure Guidance (IPG) for 2003-2018 (n = 496) was undertaken. All data were extracted independently by two researchers; disagreements were clarified by consensus. Data were tabulated, descriptive statistics produced, and regression analyses performed. Results The proportion of IPGs by recommendation was: 50 center dot 0 per cent Standard Arrangements; 37 center dot 2 per cent Special Arrangements; 11 center dot 1 per cent Research Only; and 1 center dot 6 per cent Do Not Do. There was a clear trend over time: the proportion of recommendations for Standard Arrangements decreased, whereas the evidence threshold increased. Adjusted mean numbers of patients in the evidence base by recommendation type were: Standard, 4867; Special, 709; Research Only, 386. Regression analyses confirmed that the year of recommendation, numbers of patients and levels of evidence all affected the likely recommendation. Conclusion This study suggests that the likelihood of achieving the most positive recommendation (Standard Arrangements) is decreasing, and that this is most likely due to evidential requirements becoming more demanding. These findings are distinct from those reported for other NICE committees, for which the cost and statistical superiority of new therapies are among the drivers of recommendations.
引用
收藏
页码:1769 / 1773
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The role of economic information in decision-making by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices
    Dempsey, Amanda F.
    Cowan, Anne E.
    Stokley, Shannon
    Messonnier, Mark
    Clark, Sarah J.
    Davis, Matthew M.
    VACCINE, 2008, 26 (42) : 5389 - 5392
  • [2] Quality of decision-making by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) and the impact on outcomes
    Neville, AM
    Lloyd, JM
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2004, 7 (03) : 374 - 374
  • [3] Participatory decision-making through the Advisory Committee on Communicable Diseases: The Sri Lankan experience
    Wijesinghe, Pushpa Ranjan
    Palihawadana, Paba
    Peiris, Thelge Sudath Rohana
    VACCINE, 2010, 28 : A96 - A103
  • [4] Immunization decision-making in the Republic of Korea: The structure and functioning of the Korea Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices
    Cho, Hee-Yeon
    Kim, Chang-Hoon
    Go, Un-Yeong
    Lee, Hoan-Jong
    VACCINE, 2010, 28 : A91 - A95
  • [5] Shared decision-making: summary of NICE guidance
    Carmona, Chris
    Crutwell, Joseph
    Burnham, Marie
    Polak, Louisa
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2021, 373
  • [6] Pharmacoeconomics: NICE's approach to decision-making
    Rawlins, Michael
    Barnett, David
    Stevens, Andrew
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 2010, 70 (03) : 346 - 349
  • [8] PARTICIPATION AND PURPOSE IN COMMITTEE DECISION-MAKING
    HALL, RL
    AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 1987, 81 (01) : 105 - 127
  • [9] NIH establishes decision-making committee
    不详
    JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2003, 44 (09) : 36N - 36N
  • [10] DECISION-MAKING IN THE HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE
    ROBINSON, JA
    ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY, 1958, 3 (01) : 73 - 86