Embedded Files
Appraisal of: Misso K, Stoniute A, Green R, Kenworthy J. HTA8 Identification of Cost-Effectiveness Evidence in UK NICE Single Technology Assessment Company Submissions: Databases, Sources and Currency of Searching. Value in Health 2024; 27(6):S245.
Appraisal of: Misso K, Stoniute A, Green R, Kenworthy J. HTA8 Identification of Cost-Effectiveness Evidence in UK NICE Single Technology Assessment Company Submissions: Databases, Sources and Currency of Searching. Value in Health 2024; 27(6):S245.
Further details are provided in the conference poster here: https://www.ispor.org/docs/default-source/intl2024/ispor24-kenworthyhta8poster139285-pdf.pdf
Further details are provided in the conference poster here: https://www.ispor.org/docs/default-source/intl2024/ispor24-kenworthyhta8poster139285-pdf.pdf
Reviewer(s): Julie Glanville, David Kaunelis
Full Reference: Misso K, Stoniute A, Green R, Kenworthy J. HTA8 Identification of Cost-Effectiveness Evidence in UK NICE Single Technology Assessment Company Submissions: Databases, Sources and Currency of Searching. Value in Health 2024; 27(6):S245. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2024.03.1359
Further details are provided in the conference poster here: https://www.ispor.org/docs/default-source/intl2024/ispor24-kenworthyhta8poster139285-pdf.pdf
Short description:
This conference poster reports a survey of the cost-effectiveness evidence collection process reported in 50 randomly selected Single Technology Appraisal (STA) submissions to the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) between January 10, 2018 and December 6, 2023.
The authors report the databases searched for economic evidence, the grey literature sources used, the currency of the searches and the language restrictions applied.
An average of 6.3 databases were searched per topic (range: 1-13). The most used databases were Embase (80%), NHS EED (70%) , Medline (68%), EconLit (65%) and the HTA database (60%). The average time between search date and submission was 7.87 months (range: 6-731 days). 18 STAs reported language restrictions and 61% (11/18) applied language limits. 64% (32/50) provided no information about language restrictions.
60% of the STAs included conference searches, but only 40% searched other grey literature sources such as websites.
10 out of 50 STAs had insufficient public information to analyze their evidence gathering methods and only 3 STAs had full (redacted) appendices and search strategies available on NICE website.
The authors conclude there are significant issues with transparency, currency of searches, and potential language bias in these submissions, suggesting room for improvement in how companies conduct and report their evidence searches for NICE submissions.
Limitations stated by the author(s):
Due to incomplete information in public domain STA committee papers, meaningful analysis couldn't be conducted for 10 STAs in their sample. Full appendices and search strategies were only accessible for three STAs on the NICE website.
Limitations stated by the reviewer(s):
No other limitations noted.
Study Type:
Audit
Related Chapters:
None
Tags:
Economics
Utilities
Databases
Searching
Language limits
Grey literature
Supplemental publications to the study:
There is a PDF of the poster provided during the conference.
https://www.ispor.org/docs/default-source/intl2024/ispor24-kenworthyhta8poster139285-pdf.pdf
Page updated
Report abuse