OBJECTIVES: When developing Single Technology Appraisal (STA) guidance, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), commissions an independent academic centre (Evidence Review Group [ERG]) to develop a report that critically appraises the manufacturer's submission and review published evidence. This research aims to compare the work of different ERGs and whether this may affect STA outcomes, particularly in light of recent reforms to the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF), which have increased the number of NICE STAs to be undertaken. METHODS: All final appraisal determinations (FADs) resulting from STA processes were screened and the outcome, disease area (classified by ICD10 category), and academic centre was extracted (up to 11/20/2016). Statistical comparisons were conducted using a Chi-squared test. RESULTS: CONCLUSIONS: To date, the likelihood of a positive recommendation has not significantly varied by ERG, with numerical differences largely due to variations in therapy areas appraised. However, NICE are conducting increasing numbers of submissions, resulting in ERGs increasingly supporting TAs in therapy areas for which they have no prior experience, potentially introducing a risk for non-uniform implementation of NICE’s methodology.