The importance of being NICE.
作者信息
Rid Annette, Littlejohns Peter, Wilson James, Rumbold Benedict, Kieslich Katharina, Weale Albert
机构信息
Department of Social Science, Health & Medicine, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK
Department of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, Weston Street, London SE1 3QD, UK.
出版信息
J R Soc Med. 2015 Oct;108(10):385-9. doi: 10.1177/0141076815598877. Epub 2015 Oct 2.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
The importance of being NICE.友善的重要性。
J R Soc Med. 2015 Oct;108(10):385-9. doi: 10.1177/0141076815598877. Epub 2015 Oct 2.
2
Health technology assessment - an important opportunity to inform the use of medical devices in the paediatric population: an analysis of NICE Medical Technology Guidance.卫生技术评估——为儿科人群医疗器械使用提供信息的重要契机：对英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所医疗技术指南的分析
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2023 Jul;21(4):533-535. doi: 10.1007/s40258-023-00805-9. Epub 2023 May 6.
3
Redaction at the heart of NICE appraisals.编辑是英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所评估的核心。
Drug Ther Bull. 2023 Sep;61(9):130. doi: 10.1136/dtb.2023.000035. Epub 2023 Jul 31.
4
NICE: mostly a bad idea.英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所（NICE）：大多是个糟糕的主意。
Emerg Med J. 2009 Sep;26(9):627-8. doi: 10.1136/emj.2009.072132.
5
Data briefing. NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence).数据简报。英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所（NICE）。
Health Serv J. 2000 Jun 8;110(5708):32.
6
Searching for a threshold - Not so NICE..寻找一个阈值——没那么美好……
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007 Jul;12(3):190; author reply 190-1. doi: 10.1258/135581907781543058.
7
NICE appraisals should be everybody's business.英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所（NICE）的评估应该是每个人的事情。
BMJ. 2007 May 5;334(7600):936-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39190.420081.94.
8
NICE and new: appraising innovation.新颖与卓越：评估创新
BMJ. 2010 Jan 5;340:b5493. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b5493.
9
Adopting medical technologies and diagnostics recommended by NICE: the Health Technologies Adoption Programme.采用英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所（NICE）推荐的医疗技术和诊断方法：健康技术采用计划。
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2014 Jul;96(5):400-1. doi: 10.1308/rcsann.2014.96.5.400.
10
NICE work--providing guidance to the British National Health Service.干得漂亮——为英国国家医疗服务体系提供指导。
N Engl J Med. 2004 Sep 30;351(14):1383-5. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp048221.
引用本文的文献
1
Justice, Transparency and the Guiding Principles of the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.公正、透明与英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所指导原则
Health Care Anal. 2022 Jun;30(2):115-145. doi: 10.1007/s10728-021-00444-y. Epub 2021 Nov 8.
2
NICE and Fair? Health Technology Assessment Policy Under the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 1999-2018.NICE 与公平？英国国家卫生与保健卓越研究所 1999-2018 年的卫生技术评估政策
Health Care Anal. 2020 Sep;28(3):193-227. doi: 10.1007/s10728-019-00381-x.
3
Innovation as a value in healthcare priority-setting: the UK experience.创新作为医疗保健优先事项设定中的一项价值：英国的经验。
Soc Justice Res. 2019;32(2):208-238. doi: 10.1007/s11211-019-00333-9. Epub 2019 Apr 15.
4
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, social values and healthcare priority setting.英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所、社会价值观与医疗保健优先事项设定
J R Soc Med. 2019 May;112(5):173-179. doi: 10.1177/0141076819842846. Epub 2019 Apr 2.
5
Swiss-CHAT: Citizens Discuss Priorities for Swiss Health Insurance Coverage.瑞士 CHAT 研究：公民讨论瑞士医疗保险覆盖的优先事项。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018 Aug 1;7(8):746-754. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2018.15.
6
Priority Setting: Right Answer to a Far Too Narrow Question? Comment on "Global Developments in Priority Setting in Health".优先排序：过于狭隘问题的正确答案？评“全球卫生优先排序的发展动向”。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018 Jan 1;7(1):86-88. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.66.
本文引用的文献
1
Public Reasoning and Health-Care Priority Setting: The Case of NICE.公共推理与医疗保健优先事项设定：以英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所为例
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2017;27(1):107-134. doi: 10.1353/ken.2017.0005.
2
National Institute for Clinical Excellence: NICE works.国家临床优化研究所：英国国家临床优化研究所卓有成效。
J R Soc Med. 2015 Jun;108(6):211-9. doi: 10.1177/0141076815587658.
3
Regulation of the pharmaceutical industry: promoting health or protecting wealth?制药行业的监管：是促进健康还是保护财富？
J R Soc Med. 2015 Jun;108(6):220-2. doi: 10.1177/0141076814568299. Epub 2015 Apr 28.
4
Beyond political rhetoric to new ideas for a sustainable NHS.超越政治言辞，探寻可持续的国民医疗服务体系新思路。
Lancet. 2015 Jan 24;385(9965):303. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60099-X.
5
Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold.英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所成本效益阈值的估计方法。
Health Technol Assess. 2015 Feb;19(14):1-503, v-vi. doi: 10.3310/hta19140.
6
Assessment and approval of drugs to be reviewed in the UK.英国待审查药品的评估与批准。
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Nov;15(12):e530. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70321-3. Epub 2014 Sep 26.
7
Causes for concern: is NICE failing to uphold its responsibilities to all NHS patients?令人担忧的原因：英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所是否未能履行其对所有国民保健服务患者的责任？
Health Econ. 2015 Jan;24(1):1-7. doi: 10.1002/hec.3130.
8
Cancer charity demands extension of drug fund despite criticisms it is unfair.癌症慈善机构要求延长药物基金，尽管有人批评该基金不公平。
BMJ. 2014 Oct 28;349:g6507. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g6507.
9
The Influence of Cost-Effectiveness and Other Factors on Nice Decisions.成本效益及其他因素对英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所决策的影响
Health Econ. 2015 Oct;24(10):1256-1271. doi: 10.1002/hec.3086. Epub 2014 Sep 23.
10
Which way now for the Cancer Drugs Fund?癌症药物基金的未来何去何从？
BMJ. 2014 Sep 9;349:g5524. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g5524.
Zotero 插件