Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

NICE’s 2008 Methods Guide

Sensible Consolidation or Opportunities Missed?

  • Editorial
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf [Accessed 2008 Aug 14]

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brazier J. Valuing health states for use in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 769–779

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Claxton K. Exploring uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 781–798

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 733–744

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Miners A. Estimating ‘costs’ for cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 745–751

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sculpher M. Subgroups and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 799–806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sutton A, Ades AE, Cooper N, et al., on behalf of the NICE Decision Support Unit. Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 753–767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/TAP_Methods.pdf [Accessed 2008 Aug 14]

    Google Scholar 

  9. Earnshaw J, Lewis G. NICE guide to the methods of technology appraisal: pharmaceutical industry perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 725–727

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Longworth L, Longson C. NICE methodology for technology appraisals: cutting edge or tried and trusted? Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 729–732

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal: draft for consulation. London: NICE 2007

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day NA. A comparison of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann Int Med 2001; 33: 358–370

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the single technology appraisal (STA) process. London: NICE 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/staprocess.pdf [Accessed 2008 Aug 14]

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hutton J, Trueman P, Henshall C. Coverage with evidence development: an examination of conceptual and policy issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007; 23: 425–432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tunis SR, Pearson SD. Coverage options for promising technologies: Medicare’s ‘coverage with evidence development’. Health Aff 2006; 25 (5): 1218–1230

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Health Economics and NICE Decision Support Unit, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK

    Mark Sculpher

Authors
  1. Mark Sculpher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Sculpher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sculpher, M. NICE’s 2008 Methods Guide . Pharmacoeconomics 26, 721–724 (2008). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826090-00001

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826090-00001

Search

Navigation