• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所开展的比较效果评估

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

作者信息

Chalkidou Kalipso

机构信息

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

出版信息

Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2009 Jul;59:1-12.

PMID:19639713
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.

摘要

英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)的设立旨在履行三项核心职能:1)通过制定和传播基于最佳实践证据的标准,减少英国各地医疗实践中不必要的差异;2)鼓励高价值医疗创新的快速传播和统一采用;3)确保纳税人的钱投资于国民医疗服务体系,以使健康效益最大化。NICE的决策由健康专业人士、学者、行业代表和非专业代表组成的独立委员会做出。全年有2000多名专家参与NICE的工作流程。NICE委员会在做决策时会考虑比较临床效果和成本效益、社会价值(包括对公平性的影响)以及英国和欧盟的法规。

相似文献

1
Comparative effectiveness review within the U.K.'s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所开展的比较效果评估
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2009 Jul;59:1-12.
2
Evidence-based decision-making within Australia's pharmaceutical benefits scheme.澳大利亚药品福利计划中的循证决策。
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2009 Jul;60:1-13.
3
National Authority for Health: France.法国国家卫生管理局
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2009 Jul;58:1-9.
4
Quality, innovation, and value for money: NICE and the British National Health Service.质量、创新与性价比:英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)与英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)
JAMA. 2005 Nov 23;294(20):2618-22. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.20.2618.
5
Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care: Germany.德国医疗质量与效率研究所
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2009 Jul;57:1-12.
6
Informing a decision framework for when NICE should recommend the use of health technologies only in the context of an appropriately designed programme of evidence development.为 NICE 何时应仅在适当设计的证据开发计划背景下推荐使用卫生技术制定决策框架提供信息。
Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(46):1-323. doi: 10.3310/hta16460.
7
How should cost-effectiveness analysis be used in health technology coverage decisions? Evidence from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence approach.成本效益分析应如何用于卫生技术覆盖决策?来自英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所方法的证据。
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007 Apr;12(2):73-9. doi: 10.1258/135581907780279521.
8
Implications of the appraisal function of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE).英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)评估功能的影响。
Value Health. 2001 May-Jun;4(3):212-6. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2001.43079.x.
9
Pharmaceutical regulation: the early experience of the NHS National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) appraisal process--where are we headed?
Value Health. 2001 Jan-Feb;4(1):8-11. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2001.004001008.x.
10
Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada.利用有效性和成本效益来做出药物覆盖范围决策:英国、澳大利亚和加拿大的比较
JAMA. 2009 Oct 7;302(13):1437-43. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1409.

引用本文的文献

1
Exploring evidence gaps in clinical trials in thermal burns care: an umbrella review.探索热烧伤护理临床试验中的证据空白:一项伞状综述
BMJ Open. 2025 Jun 25;15(6):e094303. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-094303.
2
Practice variation in induction of labor: A critical document analysis on the contribution of regional protocols.分娩诱导实践中的差异:区域方案贡献的关键文件分析。
PLoS One. 2024 Oct 1;19(10):e0311032. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311032. eCollection 2024.
3
Identification and classification of principal features for analyzing unwarranted clinical variation.
分析不适当临床变异的主要特征的识别和分类。
J Eval Clin Pract. 2024 Mar;30(2):251-259. doi: 10.1111/jep.13940. Epub 2023 Nov 7.
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.研究药物的间接比较荟萃分析方法的传播与早期应用的历史及出版趋势:随时间变化的动态共同作者网络
BMJ Open. 2018 Jun 30;8(6):e019110. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019110.
5
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.对经济合作与发展组织成员国公共资助药品计划中使用的费用分担策略的系统评价。
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 11;9(3):e90434. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090434. eCollection 2014.
6
Role of centralized review processes for making reimbursement decisions on new health technologies in Europe.集中审查程序在欧洲新医疗技术报销决策中的作用。
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;3:117-86. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S14407. Epub 2011 Aug 30.
7
Societal values in the allocation of healthcare resources: is it all about the health gain?社会价值观在医疗资源配置中的作用:是否全在于健康收益?
Patient. 2011;4(4):207-25. doi: 10.2165/11588880-000000000-00000.
8
Health technology funding decision-making processes around the world: the same, yet different.全球卫生技术资金决策过程:大同小异。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2011 Jun;29(6):475-95. doi: 10.2165/11586420-000000000-00000.