The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Recent amendments to NICE’s value-based assessment of health technologies: implicitly inequitable?
Open accessAbstract
Over recent years, the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has implemented or proposed several amendments to its methods and processes for the economic evaluation of healt...
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Moreover, considering that generally the healthcare resources are finite, adopting unjustifiably expensive technologies displaces resources in other similar patients, with a net decrease in population health (Paulden, 2017).”
From When more is not better: 10 ‘don’ts’ in endometriosis management. An ETIC* position statement (2019) · cites this paper as Paulden, 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2008, Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2008
- 10.1007/s40273-016-0403-2 · DOI
- 10.1377/hlthaff.17.5.50 · DOI
- 10.1185/030079906X159461 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.321.7272.1300 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1136/bmj.a1850 · DOI
- 10.1007/s40273-014-0204-4 · DOI
- National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2004, Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2004
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2013, Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013 [Internet]
- 10.3310/hta19140 · DOI
- Barnsley P, Towse A, Karlsberg Schaffer S, et al. Critique of CHE research paper 81: methods for the estimation of the NICE cost-effectiveness threshold [Internet]. Office of Health Economics. 2013. Available from: https://www.ohe.org/publications/critique-che-research-paper-81-methods-estimation-nice-cost-effectiveness-threshold · DOI
- 10.1136/jme.27.4.275 · DOI
- 10.1016/0277-9536(94)00307-F · DOI
- 10.7939/R3M902D4P · DOI
- 10.1002/hec.641 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
When more is not better: 10 ‘don’ts’ in endometriosis management. An ETIC* position statement
Club, E. E. T. I., Alio, L., Angioni, S., Arena, S., Bartiromo, L., Bergamini, V, Berlanda, N., Bonin, C., Busacca, M., Candiani, M., et al. (2019) · Human Reproduction Open · doi:10.1093/hropen/hoz009 · Cited by 64
“in other similar patients, with a net decrease in population health (Paulden, 2017).”
BackgroundInfluentialWhy it’s Time to Abandon the ICER
Paulden, M. (2020) · PharmacoEconomics · doi:10.1007/s40273-020-00915-5 · Cited by 65
Self-citationVercellini, P., Frattaruolo, M. P., & Buggio, L. (2018) · Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research · doi:10.1080/14737167.2018.1411803 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Paulden, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Paulden, Mike
- ORCID
- Paulden, Mike
- Venue
- Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-05-04
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 239-242
- ISSN
- 1473-7167 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-8379
- OpenAlex
- W2613930366
- Cited by
- 83
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- Nice, value-based assessment, health technology assessment, economic evaluation, equity, health disparities, cost-effectiveness
- MeSH terms
- Cost-Benefit Analysis, United Kingdom, Humans, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Biomedical Technology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
