Coronary artery stents in the treatment of ischaemic heart disease: a rapid and systematic review.

Abstract

artery stents in the treatment of ischaemic heart disease: a rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2000;4(23). Health Technology Assessment is indexed in Index Medicus/MEDLINE and Excerpta Medica/ EMBASE. Copies of the Executive Summaries are available from the NCCHTA website (see overleaf). NHS R&D HTA Programme T he overall aim of the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and work in the NHS. Research is undertaken in those areas where the evidence will lead to the greatest benefits to patients, either through improved patient outcomes or the most efficient use of NHS resources. The Standing Group on Health Technology advises on national priorities for health technology assessment. Six advisory panels assist the Standing Group in identifying and prioritising projects. These priorities are then considered by the HTA Commissioning Board supported by the National Coordinating Centre for HTA (NCCHTA). The research reported in this monograph was commissioned by the HTA programme (project number 99/15/01) on behalf of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Rapid reviews are completed in a limited time to inform the appraisal and guideline development processes managed by NICE. The review brings together evidence on key aspects of the use of the technology concerned. However, appraisals and guidelines produced by NICE are informed by a wide range of sources. Any views expressed in this rapid review are therefore those of the authors and not necessarily those of the HTA programme, NICE or the Department of Health. Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. Criteria for inclusion in the HTA monograph series Reports are published in the HTA monograph series if (1) they have resulted from work either prioritised by the Standing Group on Health Technology, or otherwise commissioned for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the referees and editors.

What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments

“…Some reviews were reported to be carried out in two sections (efficacy and cost‐effectiveness) – with different numbers of reviewers working on the discrete parts of the review (e.g. Meads et al ., 53 Shepherd et al ., 10 Stordeur et al ., 32 Vlayen et al 11 . and Vlayen et al 12…”

The epidemiology of blood component transfusion in Catalonia, Northeastern Spain

“…For instance, the high use of RBC transfusion in gastric and liver cancer reported from South Korea 15 probably reflects the higher prevalence of both diseases in Southeastern Asia 16,17 . Likewise, the large variations in RBC use in cardiovascular diseases observed in some studies can be due, at least in part, to the well‐documented variation in the relative rates of percutaneous angioplasty to coronary bypass surgery, often related to peculiarities of the health care system 18,19 . Comparisons are further compounded by methodologic differences in the collection of data and the few epidemiologic studies from which the results had been disaggregated at the level of specific diagnoses and procedures 3 .…”

Economic evaluation of the impact of nicorandil in angina (IONA) trial

“…20 21 However, the range of cost effectiveness ratios for adjunctive nicorandil appears very attractive when compared with several other new treatments recently evaluated in a similar way. [22][23][24] In one clinical trial, the use of a platelet glycoprotein receptor IIb/IIIa antagonist in acute coronary syndromes resulted in an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of £9995 (J14 725) for each event avoided. The incremental costs of clopidogrel may be similarly high.…”