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 Consultation

    Has all of the relevant evidence been taken into account?

  • Question on Consultation

    Are the summaries of clinical and cost effectiveness reasonable interpretations of the evidence?

  • Question on Consultation

    Are the recommendations sound and a suitable basis for guidance to the NHS?

  • Question on Consultation

    Are there any equality issues that need special consideration and are not covered in the medical technology consultation document?

  • Question on Document

    Please could medical professionals with relevant experience consider the list of outcomes in the evidence generation plan and provide feedback comments?

Evidence generation plan for HTG10887 Digital platforms to support preparation before and rehabilitation after primary elective hip or knee replacement surgery: early-use assessment

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.

5 Minimum evidence standards

During the evidence generation period, new technologies may become available. This section summarises the minimum evidence requirements that a new technology would need to meet to be considered in the NICE evaluation after the evidence generation period.

The minimum evidence standards for this topic were informed by randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence, company submissions, the external assessment group (EAG) report and the committee discussions. These sources provided an overview of the current clinical and economic evidence for digital platforms supporting preparation before and rehabilitation after primary elective hip or knee replacement surgery in the NHS.

The committee noted that, although evidence was available for some outcomes, including pain, joint-specific function, health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction and usability, there were important limitations in the current evidence base. Comparative evidence versus NHS current practice was limited, with many studies being single-arm or observational in design. Sample sizes were often small, follow-up periods were short, and findings were inconsistent across technologies and outcomes.

Evidence on healthcare resource use, including length of stay, physiotherapy contacts, emergency department attendance and readmissions, was limited or based on assumptions, creating uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness model. There was also limited evidence to determine which patient groups are most likely to benefit from these technologies.

Future studies should address these uncertainties by generating comparative evidence, measure health-related quality of life and quantify healthcare resource use and patient engagement in real practice. This data will support future decision making on whether these technologies should be routinely used in the NHS.