Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparisons between cases with and without addenda for IQWiG assessments and FJC appraisals and between assessments and appraisals

From: Different interpretation of additional evidence for HTA by the commissioned HTA body and the commissioning decision maker in Germany: whenever IQWiG and Federal Joint Committee disagree

Comparisons

Chi-square

df

p-valuea

Addenda vs non-addenda added benefit on subpopulation basis IQWiG assessments

7.379

4

0.117

Addenda IQWiG assessments vs FJC appraisals added benefit on subpopulation basis

44.287

4

<  10−5

Non-addenda IQWiG assessments vs FJC appraisals added benefit on subpopulation basis

4.463

4

0.347

Addenda vs non-addenda added benefit on subpopulation basis FJC appraisals

21.988

4

0.0002

Addenda vs non-addenda evidence level on subpopulation basis FJC appraisals

27.688

3

<  10−5

Addenda vs non-addenda maximal added benefit FJC appraisals

14.949

4

0.005

Addenda vs non-addenda maximal evidence level FJC appraisals

12.795

3

0.005

Addenda vs non-addenda maximal added benefit FJC appraisals for all 13 categoriesb

26.733

10

0.003

  1. a) alpha = 0.05
  2. b) Cat1 “added benefit not proven”
  3. Cat2 “hint of non-quantifiable added benefit”
  4. Cat3 “indication of non-quantifiable added benefit”
  5. Cat4 “proof of non-quantifiable added benefit”
  6. Cat5 “hint of minor added benefit”
  7. Cat6 “indication of minor added benefit”
  8. Cat7 “proof of minor added benefit”
  9. Cat8 “hint of considerable added benefit”
  10. Cat9 “indication of considerable added benefit”
  11. Cat10 “proof of considerable added benefit”
  12. Cat11 “hint of major added benefit”
  13. Cat12 “indication of major added benefit”
  14. Cat13 “proof of major added benefit”
  15. Categories 4 and 13 remained unallocated (df = 10)
Back to article page

Health Economics Review

ISSN: 2191-1991

Contact us