We have located links that may give you full text access.
Decision-making by the NICE Interventional Procedures Advisory Committee.
British Journal of Surgery 2019 October 26
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: 50·0 per cent Standard Arrangements; 37·2 per cent Special Arrangements; 11·1 per cent Research Only; and 1·6 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.
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: 50·0 per cent Standard Arrangements; 37·2 per cent Special Arrangements; 11·1 per cent Research Only; and 1·6 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.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app