Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

NICE Methodology for Technology Appraisals

Cutting Edge or Tried and Trusted?

  • Editorial
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal (ref N01505). London: NICE 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http:/Avww.nice.org.uk/about nice/howwework/devnicetech/technologyappraisalprocessguides/guide_to_the_methods_of_technology_appraisal_referen ce_n0515.jsp [Accessed 2008 Aug 5]

    Google Scholar 

  2. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal (ref N1618). London: NICE, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B5 2/A7/T AMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf [Accessed 2008 Aug 5]

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brazier J. Valuing health states for use in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 769–779

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Claxton K. Exploring uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 781–798

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 733–744

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Miners A. Estimating ‘costs’ for cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 745–751

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sculpher M. Subgroups and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 799–806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sutton A, Ades AE, Cooper N, et al, on behalf of the NICE Decision Support Unit. Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 753–767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Martin S, Rice N, Smith PC. Further evidence on the link between health care spending and health outcomes in England [Centre for Health Economics Research Paper 32]. York: University of York, 2007

    Google Scholar 

  10. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion for the treatment of diabetes. NICE technology appraisal guidance 151. London: NICE 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA151 [Accessed 2008 Aug 6]

    Google Scholar 

  11. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Cetuximab for the treatment of head and neck cancer. NICE technology appraisal guidance 145. London: NICE, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TAl 45 [Accessed 2008 Aug 6]

    Google Scholar 

  12. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Infliximab for the treatment of psoriasis. NICE technology appraisal guidance 134. London: NICE, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA134 [Accessed 2008 Aug 6]

    Google Scholar 

  13. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Omalizumab for severe persistent allergic asthma. NICE technology appraisal guidance 133. London: NICE, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TAl 33 [Accessed 2008 Aug 6]

    Google Scholar 

  14. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Natalizumab for the treatment of adults with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. NICE technology appraisal guidance 127. London: NICE, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA127 [Accessed 2008 Aug 6]

    Google Scholar 

  15. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Carmustine implants and temozolomide for the treatment of newly diagnosed high grade glioma. NICE technology appraisal guidance 121. London: NICE, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA121 [Accessed 2008 Aug 6]

    Google Scholar 

  16. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Cardiac resynchronisation therapy for the treatment of heart failure. NICE technology appraisal guidance 120. London: NICE 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA120 [Accessed 2008 Aug 6]

    Google Scholar 

  17. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Etanercept and efalizumab for the treatment of adults with psoriasis. NICE technology appraisal guidance 103. London: NICE, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA103 [Accessed 2008 Aug 6]

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), London, UK

    Louise Longworth & Carole Longson

Authors
  1. Louise Longworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carole Longson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Longworth, L., Longson, C. NICE Methodology for Technology Appraisals. Pharmacoeconomics 26, 729–732 (2008). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826090-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826090-00003

Search

Navigation