OBJECTIVES: Since 2004 the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence requires manufacturers to conduct a probabilistic sensitivity analysis for their technology appraisals. The objective of this review is to assess the outcomes of different probabilities of being cost effective and compare this with the actual decision making done by NICE. METHODS: The search term “probabilistic sensitivity analysis” was used on NICE homepage (2012-01-25). The chapters included in the search was assessed and included for further review if a probability of being cost effective was provided regardless of what threshold was mentioned. If several probabilities were provided the number provided by the evidence review group were used rather than those provided by the manufacturer since these numbers are more likely to be used in the decision making. If several scenarios were presented the base case scenario was chosen. Finally the probabilities of being cost effective versus was compared with the actual decision making which could result in 2 outcomes either it was recommended or not recommended. The results were plotted into a graph to illustrate the relationship between PSA outcomes versus final recommendation. The assessments were ranked according to their probability of being cost effective. RESULTS: Thirty-one assessments were included for final review. A higher probability of a technology being cost effective correlated to more positive decision making and there even is observed a clear threshold where technologies with a 40% certainty of being cost effective tend to be recommended (3 out of 20) whereas those below are not recommended (2 out of 11) irrespective of ICER. CONCLUSIONS: Reports suggested that  ICER estimate was not a robust driver of decision making. NICE applicant should provide an increase attention to PSA on the top of ICER estimate.