Thriving on challenge: NICE's dementia guidelines

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

Volumn 7, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 535-538

  Iliffe, Steve ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b DeNDRoN National Co ordinating Centre   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTIC AGENT; CHOLINESTERASE INHIBITOR; DONEPEZIL; GALANTAMINE; MEMANTINE; NOOTROPIC AGENT; RIVASTIGMINE;

ALZHEIMER DISEASE; BUDGET; CONFLICT MANAGEMENT; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DEMENTIA; DRUG INDICATION; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG SYNTHESIS; EDITORIAL; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; INDIVIDUALIZATION; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL ETHICS; MINI MENTAL STATE EXAMINATION; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRESCRIPTION; PUBLIC OPINION; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SCORING SYSTEM;

EID: 37549010713     PISSN: 14737167     EISSN: 17448379     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/14737167.7.6.535     Document Type: Editorial

References (20)

1. Maidment I, Fox C, Livingston G, Katona K. Drug treatment for Alzheimer's disease: the way forward. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 21, 6-8 (2006).
2. Schneider L. The post-modern world of Alzheimer's disease trials: how much is an ADAS-cog point worth in central London? Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 21, 9-13 (2006).
3. Kwon M, Herrling P. List of drugs in development for neurodegenerative diseases. Neurodegenerative Dis. 3, 148-186 (2006).
4. Ififfe S. NICE and drug treatment for Alzheimer's disease. CNS Drugs 21(3), 177-184 (2007).
5. Chalkidou K, Hoy A, Littlejohns; R Making a decision to wait for more evidence: when the National Institute for Health & Clinical Excellence recommends a technology only in the context of research. J. R Soc. Med. 100, 453-460 (2007).
6. Rawlins M. In pursuit of quality: the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Lancet 353, 1079-1082 (1999).
7. Pearson S, Rawlins M. Quality, innovation and value for money: NICE and the British National Health Service. JAMA 294, 2618-2622(2005).
8. Williams I, Bryan S, McIver S. How should cost-effectiveness analysis be used in health technology coverage decisions? Evidence from the National Institute fbr Health and Clinical Excellence approach. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 12(2), 73-79 (2007).
9. Bryan S, Williams I, McIver S. Seeing the NICE side of cost - effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals. Health Econ. 16, 179-193 (2007).
10. Davies E, Littlejohns P. Views of Directors of Public Health about NICE appraisal guidance: results of a postal survey. J. Public Health Med. 24(4), 319-325 (2002).
11. Gafni A, Birch S. NICE methodological guidelines and decision making in the National Health Service in England & Wales. Pharmacoeconomics 21(3), 149-157 (2003).
12. Walker S, Palmer S, Sculpher M. The role of NICE technology appraisal in NHS rationing. Br. Med Bull. 81-82, 51-64 (2007).
13. Pearson S, Littlejohns P, Re-allocating resources: how should the National Institute for Health & Clinical Excellence guide disinvestment efforts in the National Health service? J. Health Serv.Res. Policy 12(3), 160-165 (2007).
14. Devlin N, Appleby J, Parkin D. Patients views of explicit rationing: what are the implications for health service decision-making? J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 8(3), 183-186 (2003).
15. Quigley M. A NICE fallacy. J. Med Ethics 33, 465-466 (2007).
16. Michaels J. Improving NICE's social value judgements. Br. Med. J. 332, 48-50 (2006).
17. Milewa T. Health technology adoption and the politics of governance in the UK. Soc. Sci. Med 63(12), 3102-3112 (2006).
18. Taylor R. Using health outcomes data to inform decision-making: government agency perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 19(S2), 33-38 (2001).
19. Walley T. Neuropsychotherapeutics in the UK: what has been the impact of NICE on prescribing?. CNS Drugs 18(l), 1-12 (2004).
20. Rafferty J. Review of NICE's recommendations 1999-2005. Br. Med. J. 332, 1266-1268(2006).