Developing the revised NICE appraisal technical guidance to manufacturers and sponsors: Opportunity or threat?

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 20, Issue 15, 2002, Pages 1031-1038

  Taylor, Rod S ^a   Hutton, John ^b   Culyer, Anthony J ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b MEDTAP International   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE; INDUSTRY; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; ORGANIZATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; TECHNOLOGY; UNITED KINGDOM;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH CARE SECTOR; NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES;

EID: 0036907191     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200220150-00001     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. Department of Health. A First Class Service: Quality in the New NHS. Leeds: NHS Executive, 1998
2. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Technology Appraisal Process [Online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/technologyappraisalprocessfinal.pdf [Accessed 2002 Apr 18]
3. Taylor RS. Pharmaceutical regulation: the early experience of the NHS National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) appraisal process -where are we headed? Value Health 2000; 4: 1-4
4. DH/ABP1 Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals. London: Department of Health, 1994 May
5. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Interim Guidance to Manufacturers and Sponsors for Submission to NICE Appraisal Process. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 1999
6. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance to Manufacturers and Sponsors for Submission to NICE Appraisal Process [Online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/technicalguidanceformanufacturersandsponsors.pdf [Accessed 2000 Apr 18]
7. Schubert F. The Canadian model for the establishment of guidelines. Drug Inf J 1996; 30: 503-6
8. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals: Canada. 2nd Ed. Ottawa (ON): CCOHTA, 1997
9. Australian Commonwealth Department and Health. Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Preparation of Submission to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: Commonwealth Department, 1995
10. ZFR. Preparatory Committee on Guideline Development. Dutch Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Research. Amsterlveen, The Netherlands: Ziekenfondsraad, 1999
11. Hjelmgren J, Berggren A, Andersson F. Health economic guidelines - Similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 2001; 4: 225-50
12. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ 1996; 313: 275-83
13. Torrance GW, Blaker D, Detsky A, et al. Canadian guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 9 (6): 535-59
14. Hill SR, Mitchell AS, Henry DA. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: A review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. JAMA 2000; 28 (16): 2116-21
15. Baladi J-F, Menon D, Van Otten N. Use of economic evaluation guidelines: 2 Years' experience in Canada. Health Econ 1998; 7: 221-7