Throwing my hat into the ring, I very much agree with the
sentiments expressed by Trish Greenhalgh, Andrew Booth and
others regarding the need for a defensible methodology at NICE:
There is surely NO justification for "confidentiality" when the appraisal of
therapeutic efficacy should be conducted according to defensible criteria of
validity and cost-benefit ratio AND be seen to be reproducible.
Some "focused" questions that perhaps need some
answers for the list's benefit are:
1. Does NICE have agreed standards and documentation for their
appraisal process?
2. Is it possible to obtain details of these methods (cp CRD Report
4,
Cochrane Handbook)? 3. Are these methods methodologically rigorous?
I am sure that I was one of many who requested that NICE should
make their methodology and review processes transparent and
accessible when I responded to their public consultation paper on
'developing clinical guidelines' at the end of March this year.
Alison
Dr Alison Weightman
Information Resources Manager
Health Evidence Bulletins - Wales
Duthie Library
University of Wales College of Medicine,
Cardiff, CF14 4XN. UK
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Telephone: 02920 745142
Fax: 02920 742574
Web site: http://hebw.uwcm.ac.uk
http://www.uwcm.ac.uk/uwcm/lb/pep
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
