IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v1y2017i2d10.1007_s41669-016-0001-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Issues Related to the Frequency of Exploratory Analyses by Evidence Review Groups in the NICE Single Technology Appraisal Process

Author

Listed:
  • Eva Kaltenthaler

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Christopher Carroll

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Daniel Hill-McManus

    (Bangor University)

  • Alison Scope

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Michael Holmes

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Stephen Rice

    (Newcastle University)

  • Micah Rose

    (University of Southampton)

  • Paul Tappenden

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Nerys Woolacott

    (University of York)

Abstract

Background Evidence Review Groups (ERGs) critically appraise company submissions as part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. As part of their critique of the evidence submitted by companies, the ERGs undertake exploratory analyses to explore uncertainties in the company’s model. The aim of this study was to explore pre-defined factors that might influence or predict the extent of ERG exploratory analyses. Objective The aim of this study was to explore predefined factors that might influence or predict the extent of ERG exploratory analyses. Methods We undertook content analysis of over 400 documents, including ERG reports and related documentation for the 100 most recent STAs (2009–2014) for which guidance has been published. Relevant data were extracted from the documents and narrative synthesis was used to summarise the extracted data. All data were extracted and checked by two researchers. Results Forty different companies submitted documents as part of the NICE STA process. The most common disease area covered by the STAs was cancer (44%), and most ERG reports (n = 93) contained at least one exploratory analysis. The incidence and frequency of ERG exploratory analyses does not appear to be related to any developments in the appraisal process, the disease area covered by the STA, or the company’s base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). However, there does appear to be a pattern in the mean number of analyses conducted by particular ERGs, but the reasons for this are unclear and potentially complex. Conclusions No clear patterns were identified regarding the presence or frequency of exploratory analyses, apart from the mean number conducted by individual ERGs. More research is needed to understand this relationship.

Suggested Citation

  • Eva Kaltenthaler & Christopher Carroll & Daniel Hill-McManus & Alison Scope & Michael Holmes & Stephen Rice & Micah Rose & Paul Tappenden & Nerys Woolacott, 2017. "Issues Related to the Frequency of Exploratory Analyses by Evidence Review Groups in the NICE Single Technology Appraisal Process," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 99-108, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:1:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-016-0001-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-016-0001-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-016-0001-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-016-0001-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:1:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-016-0001-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.