...
首页> 外文期刊>The British Journal of Surgery >Decision-making by the NICE Interventional Procedures Advisory Committee
【24h】

Decision-making by the NICE Interventional Procedures Advisory Committee

机译:良好的介入程序咨询委员会的决策

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Background: This study explored the evidence base for recommendations by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Interventional Procedures Advisory Committee, the only NICE committee not to consider cost. The four potential recommendations are: Standard Arrangements (can be performed as routine practice in the NHS); Special Arrangements (can be done under certain conditions); Research Only; and Do Not Do. Methods: Quantitative content analysis of data extracted from all published Interventional Procedure Guidance (IPG) for 2003- 2018 (n=496) was undertaken. All data were extracted independently by two researchers; disagreements were clarified by consensus. Data were tabulated, descriptive statistics produced, and regression analyses performed. Results: The proportion of IPGs by recommendation was: 50.0 per cent Standard Arrangements; 37.2 per cent Special Arrangements; 11.1 per cent Research Only; and 1.6 per cent Do Not Do. There was a clear trend over time: the proportion of recommendations for Standard Arrangements decreased, whereas the evidence threshold increased. Adjusted mean numbers of patients in the evidence base by recommendation type were: Standard, 4867; Special, 709; Research Only, 386. Regression analyses confirmed that the year of recommendation, numbers of patients and levels of evidence all affected the likely recommendation. Conclusion: This study suggests that the likelihood of achieving the most positive recommendation (Standard Arrangements) is decreasing, and that this is most likely due to evidential requirements becoming more demanding. These findings are distinct from those reported for other NICE committees, for which the cost and statistical superiority of new therapies are among the drivers of recommendations.
机译:背景:本研究探讨了国家卫生和护理学会(尼斯)介入程序咨询委员会的建议的证据基础,唯一不考虑费用的唯一诺贝委员会。四个潜在的建议是:标准安排(可以在NHS中作为常规实践进行);特别安排(可以在某些条件下完成);仅限研究;并且不做。方法:从所有公布的介入程序指导(IPG)提取的数据的定量含量分析于2003年 - 2018年(n = 496)。所有数据都由两位研究人员独立提取;共识澄清了分歧。数据被列为,所产生的描述性统计数据,并进行回归分析。结果:推荐IPG的比例为:50.0%的标准安排; 37.2%的特殊安排;仅11.1%的研究; 1.6%不做。随着时间的推移存在明显的趋势:标准安排的建议比例下降,而证据阈值增加。调整后的平均患者通过推荐类型的证据基础是:标准,4867;特别,709;仅研究,386.回归分析证实,建议年份,患者数量和证据水平都影响了可能的推荐。结论:本研究表明,实现最积极建议(标准安排)的可能性降低,而这最有可能是由于证据要求变得更加苛刻。这些发现与其他尼斯委员会报告的结果不同,其中新疗法的成本和统计优势是推荐的驱动因素。

著录项

  • 来源
    《The British Journal of Surgery》 |2019年第13期|共6页
  • 作者单位

    Univ Sheffield Sch Hlth &

    Related Res Sheffield S Yorkshire England;

    Univ Liverpool Inst Populat Hlth Sci Liverpool Merseyside England;

    Univ Liverpool Inst Populat Hlth Sci Liverpool Merseyside England;

    Univ Liverpool Inst Populat Hlth Sci Liverpool Merseyside England;

    Univ York Ctr Reviews &

    Disseminat York N Yorkshire England;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 外科学;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号