International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025
Methods used in early value assessments for nice: a scoping review.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Johnson Eugenie Evelynne, Orozco-Leal Giovany, Still Madeleine, O'Connor Nicole, Jayachandran Lakshmi, Robinson Tomos, Meader Nick, Kenny Ryan P W, Wallace Sheila A, Gonzalez-Moral Sonia Garcia, Vale Luke, Parker Rosalyn, Rice Stephen, Sagoo Gurdeep S, Pearson Fiona
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England introduced early value assessments (EVAs) as an evidence-based method of accelerating access to promising health technologies that could address unmet needs and contribute to the National Health Service's Long Term Plan. However, there are currently no published works considering differences and commonalities in methods used between Assessment Reports for EVAs.
METHODS: This rapid scoping review included all completed EVAs published on the NICE website up to 23 July 2024. One reviewer screened potentially relevant records for eligibility, checked by a second reviewer. Pairs of independent reviewers extracted information on the methods used in included EVAs using a prepiloted form; these were checked for accuracy. Data were described in graphical or tabular format with an accompanying narrative summary.
RESULTS: In total, seventeen EVA Reports of sixteen EVAs were included in this scoping review. Five Reports did not specify how many reviewers undertook screening, whereas five did not report data extraction methods. Five EVAs planned to conduct meta-analyses, nine planned narrative syntheses, and seven planned narrative summaries. Eleven conceptual decision models were presented, with available evidence used to construct cost-utility analyses (N = 5); cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs; N = 4); a mix of CEAs and cost-consequence analyses (CCA; N = 2); one CCA; and one cost-comparison.
CONCLUSION: Future EVA Reports should enhance the transparency of the methods used. Furthermore, EVAs could provide opportunities for the adoption of innovative methodological approaches and more flexible communication between EVA authors and key stakeholders, including patients and clinicians, companies, and NICE.
METHODS: This rapid scoping review included all completed EVAs published on the NICE website up to 23 July 2024. One reviewer screened potentially relevant records for eligibility, checked by a second reviewer. Pairs of independent reviewers extracted information on the methods used in included EVAs using a prepiloted form; these were checked for accuracy. Data were described in graphical or tabular format with an accompanying narrative summary.
RESULTS: In total, seventeen EVA Reports of sixteen EVAs were included in this scoping review. Five Reports did not specify how many reviewers undertook screening, whereas five did not report data extraction methods. Five EVAs planned to conduct meta-analyses, nine planned narrative syntheses, and seven planned narrative summaries. Eleven conceptual decision models were presented, with available evidence used to construct cost-utility analyses (N = 5); cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs; N = 4); a mix of CEAs and cost-consequence analyses (CCA; N = 2); one CCA; and one cost-comparison.
CONCLUSION: Future EVA Reports should enhance the transparency of the methods used. Furthermore, EVAs could provide opportunities for the adoption of innovative methodological approaches and more flexible communication between EVA authors and key stakeholders, including patients and clinicians, companies, and NICE.