Eltrombopag for the treatment of chronic idiopathic (immune) thrombocytopenic purpura : A Single Technology Appraisal

Evidence Review Group (ERG) final report for the National Institute for Health and Clinical ExcellencePublisher PD

Comparative Effectiveness Review Within the U.K.'s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

Examines lessons from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's use of comparative effectiveness reviews and decision-making process on evidence-based standards, uptake of medical innovations, and investment for maximum health benefit

Scoping exercise on fallers’ clinics : report to the National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R & D (NCCSDO)

The National Service Framework for Older People has stated the need for fall-prevention programmes. An appraisal of fallers’ clinics launched by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) was suspended because of a lack of information regarding existing services and typology. This project aimed to determine the feasibility of conducting economic modelling to appraise fallers’ clinics. To achieve this a national survey of services and reviews of the evidence of effectiveness of various models of fallers’ clinics and screening tools were undertaken

Future Directions for Cardiovascular Disease Comparative Effectiveness Research Report of a Workshop Sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) aims to provide decision makers with the evidence needed to evaluate the benefits and harms of alternative clinical management strategies. CER has become a national priority, with considerable new research funding allocated. Cardiovascular disease is a priority area for CER. This workshop report provides an overview of CER methods, with an emphasis on practical clinical trials and observational treatment comparisons. The report also details recommendations to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute for a new framework for evidence development to foster cardiovascular CER, and specific studies to address 8 clinical issues identified by the Institute of Medicine as high priorities for cardiovascular CER

Criteria for the use of omics-based predictors in clinical trials.

The US National Cancer Institute (NCI), in collaboration with scientists representing multiple areas of expertise relevant to 'omics'-based test development, has developed a checklist of criteria that can be used to determine the readiness of omics-based tests for guiding patient care in clinical trials. The checklist criteria cover issues relating to specimens, assays, mathematical modelling, clinical trial design, and ethical, legal and regulatory aspects. Funding bodies and journals are encouraged to consider the checklist, which they may find useful for assessing study quality and evidence strength. The checklist will be used to evaluate proposals for NCI-sponsored clinical trials in which omics tests will be used to guide therapy

Harm-reduction approaches for self-cutting in inpatient mental health settings:development and preliminary validation of the Attitudes to Self-cutting Management (ASc-Me) Scale

IntroductionHarm-reduction approaches for self-harm in mental health settings have been under-researched.AimTo develop a measure of the acceptability of management approaches for self-cutting in mental health inpatient settings.MethodsStage one: scale items were generated from relevant literature and staff/service user consultation. Stage two: A cross-sectional survey and statistical methods from classical test theory informed scale development.Results/FindingsAt stage one N=27 staff and service users participated. At stage two N=215 people (n=175 current mental health practitioners and n=40 people with experience of self-cutting as a UK mental health inpatient) completed surveys. Principal components analysis revealed a simple factor structure such that each method had a unique acceptability profile. Reliability, construct validity, and internal consistency were acceptable. The harm-reduction approaches 'advising on wound-care' and 'providing a first aid kit' were broadly endorsed; 'providing sterile razors' and 'maintaining a supportive nursing presence during cutting' were less acceptable but more so than seclusion and restraint.DiscussionThe Attitudes to Self-cutting Management scale is a reliable and valid measure that could inform service design and development.Implications for practiceNurses should discuss different options for management of self-cutting with service users. Harm reduction approaches may be more acceptable than coercive measures. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.</p

Service user involvement in the evaluation of psycho-social intervention for self-harm: a systematic literature review

Background: The efficacy of interventions and treatments for self-harm is well researched. Previous reviews of the literature have highlighted the lack of definitively effective interventions for self-harm and have highlighted the need for future research. These recommendations are also reflected in clinical guidelines published by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE, 2004) which also call for service user involvement in studies of treatment efficacy. Aims: A systematic review was undertaken to determine i) what contributions service users have made to the evaluation of psychosocial interventions ii) by what methods have service users been involved iii) in what ways could service user involvement supplement empirical evidence for interventions

National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) offers health professionals in England and Wales advice on providing NHS patients with the highest attainable standards of care. NICE gives guidance on individual health technologies, the management of specific conditions, and the safety and efficacy of interventional diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Guidance is based on the best available evidence. The evidence may not, however, be very good and is rarely complete. Those responsible for formulating the NICE’s advice therefore have to make judgments both about what is good and bad in the available science (scientific value judgments) and about what is good for society (social value judgments). In this article we focus on the scientific and social judgments forming the crux of the institute’s assessment of cost effectiveness. Scientific value judgments and those relating to clinical effectiveness are considered elsewhere