OBJECTIVES

The NICE ‘guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013’ (HTA) states that for a company to obtain a reliable and valid overview of the data, evidence should be obtained from a systematic literature review (SLR). This research aims to explore areas of critique of these SLRs made by Evidence Review Groups (ERGs) in order to highlight best practices for conducting HTA SLRs.

METHODS

The NICE website was searched in November 2018 to identify all oncology HTAs published between 1^st January and 31^st October 2018 (single technology appraisals only). Two researchers assessed publicly available ERG reports to identify key areas of critique.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine oncology HTAs were identified; 27 included publicly available critique of the clinical effectiveness SLR made by seven ERGs. Twenty-four of the submissions resulted in ‘positive’ recommendations.

ERG critiques were split into six themes: i. search strategy, ii. inclusion and exclusion criteria, iii. screening procedure, iv. data extraction process, v. quality assessment of included publications, vi. overall conclusion.

Search strategies were evaluated for how comprehensive and appropriate they were, and if the methods were well reported. ERGs commented on the appropriateness of the included studies in terms of population or comparators, and whether inclusion criteria were reported. Screening methods were only critiqued in five HTAs. ERGs commented on the clarity and relevance of the extracted data. The tools used for quality assessment were often critiqued, whilst the ERG commonly performed their own assessment.

In the five HTAs that resulted in a ‘not recommended’ decision, the ERG concluded that the clinical effectiveness SLR was adequate, reasonable, or of good quality.

CONCLUSIONS

This research highlights that across seven ERG groups, the critique largely focuses on six themes; understanding best practices in these areas will aid companies in conducting clinical effectiveness SLRs for future submissions.