Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-5zgkz Total loading time: 0.198 Render date: 2021-09-17T02:02:13.851Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Association of study type, sample size, and follow-up length with type of recommendation produced by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Interventional Procedures Programme

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2007

William Bruce Campbell
Affiliation:
Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
Steven J. Barnes
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
Rebecca A. Kirby
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
Sarah L. Willett
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
Sally Wortley
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
Georgios Lyratzopoulos
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

Abstract

Objectives: The association between type and amount of clinical evidence and type of National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommendations for interventional procedures was examined.

Methods: The evidence about 736 studies (including 183,729 patients) relating to 130 different interventional procedures and about relevant recommendations was analyzed. Associations were examined between type of recommendation (“normal arrangements” or “cautionary guidance”) and evidence type, total number of treated patients, and mean follow-up length. Evidence type was categorized as (a) randomized, (b) nonrandomized controlled, and (c) case series/reports. The main outcome measures were frequency of evidence type, total number of patients treated, and mean follow-up length, by type of recommendation.

Results: “Normal arrangements” recommendations were made for 70 (54 percent) procedures and “cautionary guidance” was issued for 60 (46 percent) procedures. Procedures supported by at least one randomized study (34 percent, n = 44) were more likely to receive a “normal arrangements” recommendation (relative risk 1.38, p = .063). Overall, there were 85 (12 percent), 135 (18 percent), and 516 (70 percent) studies in categories a–c, respectively. The number of treated patients was significantly larger among procedures with “normal arrangements” (median, 605; range, 26–6,842) than among those with “cautionary guidance” (median, 240; range, 1–3,261; p < .001) recommendation. Mean follow-up length was longer in studies relating to procedures with “normal arrangements” recommendation (median, 16.7; range, 0–84 months) compared with those with “cautionary guidance” (median, 14.6; range, 0–67 months; p = .160).

Conclusions: Procedures supported by randomized studies, and with larger numbers of patients and longer follow-up length, were more likely to receive positive guidance. Future research and development on interventional procedures should aim to produce better and more relevant evidence to optimize the possibility of such procedures being accepted by policy makers.

Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Copyright
© 2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baum M. 1999 Reflections on randomised controlled trials in surgery. Lancet. 353: SI6SI8.Google Scholar
Campbell B, Maddern G. 2003 Safety and efficacy of interventional procedures. BMJ. 326: 347348.Google Scholar
Campbell WB. 2003 Interventional procedures and NICE. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 85: 210211.Google Scholar
Chalmers I, Matthews R. 2006 What are the implications of optimism bias in clinical research? Lancet. 367: 449450.Google Scholar
Dent T, Wortley S, Campbell B. 2004 The benefits and harms of new interventional procedures. BMJ. 329: 34.Google Scholar
Fairbank J. 1999 Randomised controlled trials in surgery. Lancet. 354: 257.Google Scholar
International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. 2006. Available at: http://www.inahta.org/inahta_web/index.asp. Accessed October
Ioannidis JP. 2005 Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly refd clinical research. JAMA. 294: 218228.Google Scholar
Kessler L, Ramsey SD, Tunis S, Sullivan SD. 2004 Clinical use of medical devices in the “Bermuda Triangle”. Health Affairs. 23: 200207.Google Scholar
Papanikolaou PN, Christidi GD, Ioannidis JP. 2006. Comparison of evidence on harms of medical interventions in randomized and nonrandomized studies CMAJ.Google Scholar
Royle P, Waugh N. 2005 A simplified search strategy for identifying randomised controlled trials for systematic reviews of health care interventions: A comparison with more exhaustive strategies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 5: 23.Google Scholar
Strasberg SM, Ludbrook PA. 2003 Who oversees innovative practice? Is there a structure that meets the monitoring needs of new techniques? J Am Coll Surg. 196: 938948.Google Scholar
The Interventional Procedures Programme–Programme Manual. National Institute of Clinical Excellence, 2004. 2006. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=IPprogrammemanual. Accessed October
The Interventional Procedures Programme. Working with the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to promote safe clinical innovation. Health Service Circular HSC 2003/011, Department of Health, 2003. 2006. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=96574. Accessed October
Willett S, Campbell B. 2004 Decision making for Interventional Procedures. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 86: 468469.Google Scholar
Willett S, Campbell B. 2005 Public consultation about interventional procedures guidance. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 87: 5556.Google Scholar
13
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Association of study type, sample size, and follow-up length with type of recommendation produced by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Interventional Procedures Programme
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Association of study type, sample size, and follow-up length with type of recommendation produced by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Interventional Procedures Programme
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Association of study type, sample size, and follow-up length with type of recommendation produced by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Interventional Procedures Programme
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *