How are you taking part in this consultation?

You will not be able to change how you comment later.

You must be signed in to answer questions

  • Question on Document

    Please indicate which stakeholder group listed most closely represents you:
    1. Industry (manufacturer of medicines, health technologies or equipment)
    2. Trade body / association
    3. Consultancy
    4. University / academic
    5. Government department
    6. Other public sector organisation
    7. Voluntary and community sector organisation
    8. Health or social care practitioner
    9. Member of the public
    10. Other (provide detail)

  • Question on Document

    Have we considered all the relevant evidence in preparation for adopting the EQ-5D-5L value set? Is our interpretation of the evidence appropriate?

  • Question on Document

    Are the changes to the NICE technology appraisal and highly specialised technologies guidance manual (PMG36) appropriate?

  • Question on Document

    Are the changes to the developing NICE guidelines manual (PMG20) appropriate?

  • Question on Document

    Is it clear when alternative methods for capturing health-related quality of life may be accepted, and what the preferred hierarchy is for selecting from the available alternatives?

  • Question on Document

    Beyond what is described in the equality and health inequality impact assessment, are there any aspects of the proposed changes that need particular consideration to ensure they do not result in unlawful discrimination against any group of people on the grounds of age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation?

  • Question on Document

    If you have any further comments in relation to the proposed changes set out in this consultation, please include them here.

Modular update to NICE manuals EQ-5D-5L value set: Evidence review document

Open for comments Open until   Request commenting lead permission

We have updated this service so that members of the same organisation can now collaborate on a joint online response.

Read our blog to learn more.

Appendix B: Analysis of recently published and ongoing topics in NICE's portfolio

The information in table 2 was based on a review of recently published and ongoing topics in NICE's portfolio.

The sample for technology appraisals was based on a review of the 200 most recently published technology appraisals (at the time of the analysis; published between 22 March 2023 and 25 June 2025), excluding 41 withdrawn or terminated and 27 cost-comparison topics, plus 56 ongoing technology appraisals (for which an external assessment group report was available to ascertain whether the treatment is life extending). The number of technology appraisal topics, not the number of decisions, was analysed. If multiple relevant comparators were presented, a main comparator was chosen for this analysis (based on explicit reasoning in the final guidance document where possible, otherwise a judgement was made based on the committee reasoning). A limitation of the analysis is that some interventions may have been classified differently (life-extending against non-life-extending) if another comparator had been selected, this would have affected only 2 technology appraisals.

The sample for HealthTech was based on a review of all published evaluations up to 21 August 2025 that were categorised as HealthTech or MedTech on the NICE webpage. One technology was counted twice because it had clear applications in both cancer and non-cancer conditions.

The sample for guidelines was based on a review of the last 200 published guidelines or guideline updates (24 July 2013 to 18 June 2025). For pragmatic reasons, topics were categorised as cancer or non-cancer conditions based on the guideline's title alone.

Medicines were categorised as helping to extend how long people live if they extended life by 1 day or more.