Literature DB >> 19639713

Comparative effectiveness review within the U.K.'s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

Kalipso Chalkidou1.   

Abstract

The U.K.'s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) was established to perform three core functions: 1) reduce unwarranted variation in practice across the United Kingdom through the development and dissemination of best practice evidence-based standards; 2) encourage fast diffusion and uniform uptake of high-value medical innovations; and 3) ensure the taxpayers' money is invested in the National Health Service so that health benefit is maximized. NICE decisions are made by independent committees of health professionals, academics, and industry and lay representatives. More than 2,000 experts engage with NICE processes throughout the year. NICE committees consider comparative clinical and cost effectiveness, social values (including impact on equity), and U.K. and European Union legislation when making their decisions.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19639713

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Issue Brief (Commonw Fund)        ISSN: 1558-6847


  4 in total

Review 1.  Societal values in the allocation of healthcare resources: is it all about the health gain?

Authors:  Tania Stafinski; Devidas Menon; Deborah Marshall; Timothy Caulfield
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 2.  Health technology funding decision-making processes around the world: the same, yet different.

Authors:  Tania Stafinski; Devidas Menon; Donald J Philippon; Christopher McCabe
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  A systematic review of cost-sharing strategies used within publicly-funded drug plans in member countries of the organisation for economic co-operation and development.

Authors:  Lianne Barnieh; Fiona Clement; Anthony Harris; Marja Blom; Cam Donaldson; Scott Klarenbach; Don Husereau; Diane Lorenzetti; Braden Manns
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  History and publication trends in the diffusion and early uptake of indirect comparison meta-analytic methods to study drugs: animated coauthorship networks over time.

Authors:  Joann K Ban; Mina Tadrous; Amy X Lu; Erin A Cicinelli; Suzanne M Cadarette
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-06-30       Impact factor: 2.692

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.