Review of NICE's recommendations, 1999-2005.
作者信息
Raftery James
机构信息
Wessex Institute of Health Research and Development, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 7PX.
出版信息
BMJ. 2006 May 27;332(7552):1266-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7552.1266.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Review of NICE's recommendations, 1999-2005.英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所（NICE）1999 - 2005年建议回顾。
BMJ. 2006 May 27;332(7552):1266-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7552.1266.
2
Prognosis without treatment as a modifier in health economic assessments.作为健康经济评估中一项修正因素的未经治疗的预后情况。
BMJ. 2005 Jun 11;330(7504):1382-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.330.7504.1382.
3
Crossing the line: NICE's value for money threshold.突破界限：英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所的性价比阈值。
BMJ. 2016 Mar 9;352:i1336. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i1336.
4
The "real-life" death panel, reformed.“现实生活中的”死亡小组，已进行改革。
Hastings Cent Rep. 2011 Jan-Feb;41(1):1 p following 52.
5
How NICE may be outflanked.英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所（NICE）可能如何被智取。
BMJ. 2006 May 27;332(7552):1268-71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7552.1268.
6
Should NICE's threshold range for cost per QALY be raised? No.国家卫生与临床优化研究所（NICE）每质量调整生命年（QALY）的成本阈值范围应该提高吗？不应该。
BMJ. 2009 Jan 26;338:b185. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b185.
7
Should NICE's threshold range for cost per QALY be raised? Yes.国家卫生与临床优化研究所（NICE）每质量调整生命年（QALY）的成本阈值范围应该提高吗？应该。
BMJ. 2009 Jan 26;338:b181. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b181.
8
Patients' views of explicit rationing: what are the implications for health service decision-making?患者对明确的医疗资源配给的看法：对医疗服务决策有何影响？
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003 Jul;8(3):183-6. doi: 10.1258/135581903322029557.
9
Rational disinvestment.合理撤资。
QJM. 2010 Oct;103(10):801-7. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/hcq086. Epub 2010 Jun 8.
10
Searching for cost effectiveness thresholds in the NHS.在英国国家医疗服务体系中寻找成本效益阈值。
Health Policy. 2009 Aug;91(3):239-45. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.12.010. Epub 2009 Jan 24.
引用本文的文献
1
A systematic review of whole disease models for informing healthcare resource allocation decisions.一种系统综述了全疾病模型，用于为医疗资源配置决策提供信息。
PLoS One. 2023 Sep 14;18(9):e0291366. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291366. eCollection 2023.
2
Omalizumab for Severe Allergic Asthma Treatment in Italy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from PROXIMA Study.意大利使用奥马珠单抗治疗重度过敏性哮喘：来自PROXIMA研究的成本效益分析。
Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2020 Jan 22;13:43-53. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S211321. eCollection 2020.
3
Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries.利用健康技术评估来评估新药的价值：在八个欧洲国家进行的系统评价和专家咨询的结果。
Eur J Health Econ. 2018 Jan;19(1):123-152. doi: 10.1007/s10198-017-0871-0. Epub 2017 Mar 16.
4
Comparing the Approval and Coverage Decisions of New Oncology Drugs in the United States and Other Selected Countries.比较美国和其他选定国家新肿瘤药物的批准和覆盖决策。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017 Feb;23(2):247-254. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.2.247.
5
Cost-Effectiveness of Eplerenone Compared to Usual Care in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure and NYHA Class II Symptoms, an Australian Perspective.从澳大利亚视角看依普利酮与常规治疗相比在慢性心力衰竭且纽约心脏协会II级症状患者中的成本效益
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 May;95(18):e3531. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003531.
6
The cost-effectiveness of the Argus II retinal prosthesis in Retinitis Pigmentosa patients.Argus II 视网膜假体在色素性视网膜炎患者中的成本效益。
BMC Ophthalmol. 2014 Apr 14;14:49. doi: 10.1186/1471-2415-14-49.
7
Health technology assessments in England: an analysis of the NICE Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme.
Eur J Health Econ. 2014 Jun;15(5):449-52. doi: 10.1007/s10198-013-0539-3. Epub 2013 Nov 10.
8
Health economics and health technology assessment in Central and Eastern Europe: a dose of reality.中东欧地区的卫生经济学与卫生技术评估：一剂现实良药。
Eur J Health Econ. 2012 Oct;13(5):525-31. doi: 10.1007/s10198-012-0411-x.
9
NICE guidance: a comparative study of the introduction of the single technology appraisal process and comparison with guidance from Scottish Medicines Consortium.英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所指南：单一技术评估流程引入情况的比较研究以及与苏格兰药品联盟指南的对比
BMJ Open. 2012 Jan 30;2(1):e000671. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000671. Print 2012.
10
Valorising and creating access to innovative medicines in the European union.在欧盟实现创新药物的增值和可及性。
Front Pharmacol. 2011 Oct 11;2:57. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2011.00057. eCollection 2011.
本文引用的文献
1
Comparing estimates of cost effectiveness submitted to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) by different organisations: retrospective study.比较不同组织提交给英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所（NICE）的成本效益评估：回顾性研究。
BMJ. 2005 Jan 8;330(7482):65. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38285.482350.82. Epub 2004 Dec 15.
2
Drug policy down under: Australia's pharmaceutical benefits scheme.澳大利亚的药品政策：澳大利亚药品福利计划
Health Care Financ Rev. 2004 Spring;25(3):55-67.
3
Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis.国家卫生与临床优化研究所（NICE）是否有成本效益阈值，以及还有哪些其他因素影响其决策？一项二元选择分析。
Health Econ. 2004 May;13(5):437-52. doi: 10.1002/hec.864.
4
PHARMAC and availability of pharmaceuticals.
N Z Med J. 2002 Jun 7;115(1155):274; author reply 274-5.
5
NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies.英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所（NICE）：更快获得现代治疗方法？对卫生技术指南的分析
BMJ. 2001 Dec 1;323(7324):1300-3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7324.1300.
6
Setting health care priorities in Oregon. Cost-effectiveness meets the rule of rescue.俄勒冈州的医疗保健优先事项设定。成本效益与救援原则相遇。
JAMA. 1991 May 1;265(17):2218-25.
Zotero 插件