Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

Open Access padlockePrints

Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme: A review of NICE progression decisions, 2010–2013

Lookup NU author(s): Kim Keltie, Dr Andrew SimsORCiD



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND).


© 2016 Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine Objectives To review the progression decisions for notifications considered at National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Medical Technology Advisory Committee (MTAC) meetings during its first three years (2010–2013) to identify trends. Methods The list of medical devices discussed at committee, briefing notes, committee decisions, and non-progression letters, where applicable, were obtained from NICE. Each medical device presented to committee was classified using five different medical device categorisation systems. Trends in progression decision, scores against programme selection criteria over time, and reasons provided by committee to support the non-progression decision, were analysed. Results Between January 2010 and March 2013 31 MTAC meetings were held. Of the 110 medical technologies considered, 45 were given a progression decision (23 selected for Medical Technologies Guidance development, 22 routed for guidance development in other NICE programmes), 64 did not progress to guidance development and 1 was excluded from analysis whilst awaiting final committee decision. The six programme categories and total scores were not sensitive or specific predictors of progression to guidance decision. No significant change in the proportion selected for progression over time was observed (P>0.05). No compelling evidence of an association between the type of medical device and progression decision was found. Fifteen distinct reasons for non-progression were identified; ‘lack of evidence’ being provided in the majority, 93.8%, of cases. Conclusions During its first three years, MTAC׳s progression decisions for guidance development on medical technologies were not associated with device type and there is no evidence of changes over time.

Publication metadata

Author(s): Keltie K, Bousfield DR, Cole H, Sims AJ

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: Health Policy and Technology

Year: 2016

Volume: 5

Issue: 3

Pages: 243-250

Print publication date: 01/09/2016

Online publication date: 01/04/2016

Acceptance date: 01/01/1900

Date deposited: 20/04/2017

ISSN (print): 2211-8837

ISSN (electronic): 2211-8845

Publisher: Elsevier B.V.


DOI: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2016.03.003


Altmetrics provided by Altmetric