Ann: PromarkerD application for Australian MBS to be resubmitted, page-35

I believe all that line means is, NICE as an organisation is not responsible for any conclusion that the expert commentators draw. The NICE summary was developed by the expert commentators and they concluded the following:

• Key uncertainties around the evidence or technology are that the evidence base for PromarkerD is limited. No studies were done in the UK or NHS. Further studies including populations that represent those in NHS practice and that assess how the PromarkerD test leads to subsequent changes in clinical management and patient outcomes would be useful.

• Experts advised that the technology is novel and is expected to be used in addition to standard care tests. They said that PromarkerD would cost significantly more than standard care, and long-term cost savings would be materialised only if adopting the test reduces the number of people who need end-stage renal failure treatments.

Think of it this way, if the NICE report was overly positive then you could argue it doesn't matter because 'the comments received do not represent NICE's view".. it's simply a blanket legal cause to protect the organisation from conclusions drawn from a report, wether positive or negative.

Not hard to understand, another way to look at it - whats the point of the NICE report if you simply ignore the comments from the expert commentators?