Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41126458›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2025

NICE's early value assessment: an external assessment group's commentary on the challenges and opportunities of NICE's new life cycle approach to HealthTech.

Alan Lovell, Maxwell S Barnish, Sophie Robinson, Caroline Farmer, Edward C F Wilson, Dawn Lee

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Alan LovellPenTAG, The Medical School, https://ror.org/03yghzc09University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-2151-0720
Maxwell S BarnishPenTAG, The Medical School, https://ror.org/03yghzc09University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0139-6548
Sophie RobinsonPenTAG, The Medical School, https://ror.org/03yghzc09University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Caroline FarmerPenTAG, The Medical School, https://ror.org/03yghzc09University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3553-8970
Edward C F WilsonPenTAG, The Medical School, https://ror.org/03yghzc09University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Dawn LeePenTAG, The Medical School, https://ror.org/03yghzc09University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) early value assessment (EVA) was launched in 2022 as a process to assess new technologies that have the potential to meet an unmet need or demand. The recommendations that result from the process are best viewed as a type of managed entry agreement - that is, time-limited and conditional on further evidence being generated. This commentary, from authors in PenTAG (an external assessment group involved in assessing medical technologies for NICE, based at the University of Exeter), explores the challenges that have arisen during 3 years of performing EVAs, offers some thoughts on EVA's role in evidence generation, and their fit in NICE's wider evidence landscape. The commentary identifies areas for potential improvement in terms of timelines, scoping and protocol development, searching, reviewing, and economic modeling. Many of the suggested changes are relatively minor tweaks to the process, or requests for clearer guidance or expectation management. We conclude that, with some changes to the EVA process and its accompanying guidance, the assessments could become more efficient. In summary, the EVA represents NICE's life cycle approach in their HealthTech program, wherein evidence is collected along the life cycle to help monitor initial assumptions and recommendations made. The process is designed to continuously capture incremental innovation over the lifetime of a medical device. As such, EVAs reflect a small but important shift in how health technology assessment is practiced.

Indexed as

State MedicineTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansUnited Kingdomearly value assessment (EVA)evidence generationHealthTechMedtechNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)

Identifiers

PMID41126458
PMCPMC12555772

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.