NICE guidance: A comparative study of the introduction of the single technology appraisal process and comparison with guidance from Scottish Medicines Consortium

BMJ Open

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2012, Pages

  Ford, John A ^a   Waugh, Norman ^b   Sharma, Pawana ^a   Sculpher, Mark ^c   Walker, Andrew ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADALIMUMAB; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; CINACALCET; DOCETAXEL; EFALUZIMAB; INFLIXIMAB; PEGAPTANIB; PIMECROLIMUS; SUNITINIB; TELBIVUDINE; TRABECTEDIN; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG SCREENING; HUMAN; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLICATION; SINGLE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84857819988     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000671     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Horton R. NICE vindicated in UK's High Court. Lancet 2007;18:547-8. (Pubitemid 47247837)
2. Cookson R, McDaid D, Maynard A, et al. NICE mess: is national guidance distorting allocation of resources? BMJ 2001;323: 743-5. (Pubitemid 32929442)
3. Steinbrook R. Saying no isn't NICEdthe travails of Britain's national Institute for health and clinical excellence. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1977-81.
4. Raftery J. Review of NICE's recommendations, 1999-2005. BMJ 2006;332:1266-8. (Pubitemid 44365421)
5. Cairns J. Providing guidance to the NHS: the Scottish medicines Consortium and the national Institute for clinical Excellence compared. Health Policy 2006;76:134-43. (Pubitemid 43330597)
6. Watts G. Are the scots getting a better deal on prescribed drugs than the English? BMJ 2006;333:875.
7. Barbieri M, Hawkins N, Sculpher M. Who does the numbers? The role of third-party technology assessment to inform health systems' decision-making about the funding of health technologies. Value in Health 2009;12:193-201.
8. Rawlins MD. The decade of NICE. Lancet 2009;25:351-2.
9. Waugh N, Cummins E, Royle P, et al. Newer drugs for blood glucose control in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2010;14:1-248.
10. Dear J, O'Dowd C, Timoney A, et al. Scottish Medicines Consortium: an overview of rapid new drug assessment in Scotland. Scott Med J 2007;52:20-6.
11. Barham L. Single technology appraisals by NICE: are they delivering faster guidance to the NHS? Pharmacoeconomics 2008;26:1037-43.
12. Mason A, Drummond M, Ramsey S, et al. Comparison of anticancer drug coverage decisions in the United states and United Kingdom: does the evidence support the Rhetoric? JCO 2010;28:3234-8.
13. Department of Health, Social Services and public Safety. Implementation of National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Guidance in the HPSS. http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/nice-guidance-01-06.pdf (accessed Aug 2011).