Table A4.
Pattern and Clinical Performance Scoring Index Results
| Evaluation Criteria (score range 1–5) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product Name (generic) | Intended Purpose of Treatment | Strength of Evidence | Consistency of Results | Clinical Impact | Appropriate Outcome Measured | Toxicity Level/Risks/Convenience | Alternatives Available | Total Score |
| Tier 1 | ||||||||
| Curalib (A) | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 27 |
| Tier 2 | ||||||||
| Pallalib (B) | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 25 |
| Oxymoralib (C) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 24 |
NOTE. Tier 1 indicates drug technologies used in the adjuvant or curable setting; tier 2, drug technologies intended for the palliative or metastatic setting. Product A (tier 1) is not compared with B and C (tier 2). B scores better than C overall, but scoring patterns differ. B studies were more rigorous, with more consistent results and a better toxicity profile versus comparators. C studies used more appropriate outcomes, and acceptable alternatives exist. This fosters debate that elicits panel members' implicit values.