BMJ  2003;327:1061-1062 (8 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7423.1061

Editorial

WHO evaluates NICE

The report card is good, but incomplete

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) has emerged in the brief period of its existence as an important influence on decision making and allocation of resources by the NHS. The recent release of a report by the World Health Organization on NICE's technology appraisal programme provides an international perspective on NICE's processes and impact.¹

By design, the report has important limitations. NICE commissioned it in response to concerns raised by the 2002 Select Committee Inquiry² regarding the scientific validity of its processes. NICE restricted WHO to consideration of the "methods and scientific robustness" of technology appraisal and resulting guidance. Other important roles NICE has, such as providing clinical guidelines and recommendations on audit methods, are not assessed. Wider questions about NICE's role as a de facto priority setting body for the NHS are acknowledged but not addressed. These include non-trivial issues—what impact does guidance from NICE have in practice . . . [Full text of this article]

(n.j.devlin@city.ac.uk)

(d.parkin@city.ac.uk) City Health Economics Centre, City University, London EC1V OHB

City University of New York Medical School, 138th Street and Convent Avenue, New York, NY 10031, USA (goldmr@sci.ccny.cuny.edu)

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Article

Should NICE evaluate complementary and alternative medicine?

Linda Franck, Cyril Chantler, and Michael Dixon
BMJ 2007 334: 506. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Franck, L., Chantler, C., Dixon, M. (2007). Should NICE evaluate complementary and alternative medicine?. BMJ 334: 506-506 [Full text]