用于nice早期价值评估的方法:范围审查。

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Eugenie Evelynne Johnson, Giovany Orozco-Leal, Madeleine Still, Nicole O'Connor, Lakshmi Jayachandran, Tomos Robinson, Nick Meader, Ryan P W Kenny, Sheila A Wallace, Sonia Garcia Gonzalez-Moral, Luke Vale, Rosalyn Parker, Stephen Rice, Gurdeep S Sagoo, Fiona Pearson
{"title":"用于nice早期价值评估的方法:范围审查。","authors":"Eugenie Evelynne Johnson, Giovany Orozco-Leal, Madeleine Still, Nicole O'Connor, Lakshmi Jayachandran, Tomos Robinson, Nick Meader, Ryan P W Kenny, Sheila A Wallace, Sonia Garcia Gonzalez-Moral, Luke Vale, Rosalyn Parker, Stephen Rice, Gurdeep S Sagoo, Fiona Pearson","doi":"10.1017/S0266462325100433","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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 (<i>N</i> = 5); cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs; <i>N</i> = 4); a mix of CEAs and cost-consequence analyses (CCA; <i>N</i> = 2); one CCA; and one cost-comparison.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":14467,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","volume":"41 1","pages":"e64"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12450547/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methods used in early value assessments for nice: a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Eugenie Evelynne Johnson, Giovany Orozco-Leal, Madeleine Still, Nicole O'Connor, Lakshmi Jayachandran, Tomos Robinson, Nick Meader, Ryan P W Kenny, Sheila A Wallace, Sonia Garcia Gonzalez-Moral, Luke Vale, Rosalyn Parker, Stephen Rice, Gurdeep S Sagoo, Fiona Pearson\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0266462325100433\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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 (<i>N</i> = 5); cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs; <i>N</i> = 4); a mix of CEAs and cost-consequence analyses (CCA; <i>N</i> = 2); one CCA; and one cost-comparison.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"e64\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12450547/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462325100433\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462325100433","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:英国国家健康和护理卓越研究所(NICE)引入了早期价值评估(EVAs),作为加速获得有前途的卫生技术的循证方法,这些技术可以解决未满足的需求并有助于国家卫生服务的长期计划。然而,目前还没有发表的作品考虑到EVAs评估报告之间使用的方法的差异和共性。方法:这项快速范围审查包括截至2024年7月23日在NICE网站上发布的所有已完成的eva。一位审稿人筛选潜在的相关记录,由另一位审稿人检查。一对独立的审稿人使用预先编制的表格提取了有关纳入EVAs中使用的方法的信息;这些都经过了准确性检查。数据以图形或表格形式描述,并附有叙述性摘要。结果:共纳入16例EVA的17份EVA报告。五份报告没有具体说明有多少审稿人进行了筛选,而五份报告没有报告数据提取方法。5个eva计划进行meta分析,9个计划进行叙事综合,7个计划进行叙事总结。提出了11个概念决策模型,并使用现有证据构建成本效用分析(N = 5);成本-效果分析(CEAs; N = 4);综合cea和成本-后果分析(CCA; N = 2);一个CCA;还有一个成本比较。结论:未来的EVA报告应提高所用方法的透明度。此外,EVA可以为采用创新的方法方法和EVA作者与主要利益相关者(包括患者和临床医生、公司和NICE)之间更灵活的沟通提供机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Methods used in early value assessments for nice: a scoping review.

Methods used in early value assessments for nice: a scoping review.

Methods used in early value assessments for nice: a scoping review.

Methods used in early value assessments for nice: a scoping review.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
15.60%
发文量
116
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care serves as a forum for the wide range of health policy makers and professionals interested in the economic, social, ethical, medical and public health implications of health technology. It covers the development, evaluation, diffusion and use of health technology, as well as its impact on the organization and management of health care systems and public health. In addition to general essays and research reports, regular columns on technology assessment reports and thematic sections are published.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信