ReviewInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2025
Approaches to modeling treatment sequencing in practice: a thematic review of prior NICE appraisals.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs the variety of specific treatments in a disease area increases, there may be a growing interest in employing treatment sequencing within health economic models. The aim of this review was to identify and thematically analyze patterns regarding the approaches to modeling treatment sequencing in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) appraisals.
methodsA review of NICE technology appraisals (TAs) published between 1 January 2020 and 13 March 2023 was conducted.
resultsA total of twenty-four TAs incorporating treatment sequencing were included, most commonly in autoimmune and oncology indications. Primary justifications for companies employing treatment sequencing were precedence and alignment with clinical practice, whilst lack of appropriate clinical data was cited to justify its exclusion. Relatedly, External Assessment Groups commonly criticized treatment sequences for oversimplifying clinical practice. Notably, almost half of identified TAs assumed that the relative efficacy of an intervention was maintained regardless of disease severity or position within the treatment sequence.
conclusionA substantial proportion of TAs employed treatment sequencing, but it is challenging to determine the impact of current approaches on the overall uncertainty associated with any health economic model. The challenges identified in this review could be used to inform future formal guidance and associated methodology for the implementation of treatment sequencing modeling, which could improve the comparability and reliability of models and their results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.