PubMed · 14613443
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Zafar Hakim. Using decision-analytic models wisely.. https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2003.9.5.449
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) issues mandatory guidance on health technologies to the UK NHS, based on clinical evidence, cost-effectiveness and other considerations. However, the exact factors considered, their relative importance and tradeoffs between them are not made explicit. Previous research modelled NICE decisions as a binary choice (accept/reject) dependent on cost-effectiveness, amongst other variables. This paper proposes and tests an alternative model of decision-making that may better represent the "yes, but..." nature of many NICE decisions. Decisions were categorised as "recommended for routine use", "recommended for restricted use" or "not recommended". The NICE appraisal process was modelled as a single decision between the three categories. Multinomial logistic regression techniques were used to evaluate the impact of: quantity/quality of clinical evidence; cost-effectiveness; decision date; existence of alternative treatments; budget impact; technology type. Results suggest that interventions supported by more randomised trials are more likely to be recommended and endorsed for routine use. Higher cost-effectiveness ratios increased the likelihood of interventions being rejected rather than recommended for restricted use but did not significantly affect the decision between routine and restricted use. Pharmaceuticals, interventions appraised early in the NICE programme and those with more systematic reviews were also less likely to be rejected, while patient group submissions made a recommendation for routine rather than restricted use more likely. The presence of factors affecting the decision between routine and restricted use but not that between routine use and rejection suggests that modelling these three outcomes reflects NICE decision-making more closely than binary-choice analyses.
BACKGROUND: While the number of patients with suspected venous thromboembolism (VTE) referred to hospital emergency units increases, the proportion in whom the diagnosis can be confirmed is decreasing. A more efficient but safe diagnostic strategy is needed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of withholding anticoagulant therapy in patients suspected of VTE based on a diagnostic work-up that combines a clinical decision rule (CDR) with a D-dimer test result without performing additional diagnostic tests. PATIENTS/METHODS: We searched Medline (January 1996-December 2004)-related articles and reference lists of studies in English for prospective clinical studies that managed consecutive patients suspected of VTE and used a D-dimer assay combined with an explicit CDR or implicit clinical judgment. RESULTS: We identified 11 studies in which 6837 consecutive outpatients suspected of VTE were included. In the combined management studies, the overall rate of thromboembolic events was nine out of 2056 patients (0.44 %, 95% CI 0.2%-0.83%) in whom anticoagulants were withheld based on the D-dimer result and a low clinical score. Similar results were obtained with qualitative and quantitative D-dimer tests and with different decision rules. The rate of exclusion varied between 30% and 50% and was highest with a low incidence of VTE among those referred. CONCLUSION: Withholding anticoagulant treatment in patients suspected of VTE on the basis of a work-up consisting of a low clinical probability combined with either a qualitative or quantitative D-dimer test result is safe.