Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24504851›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2014

Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature.

Kevin Marsh, Tereza Lanitis, David Neasham, Panagiotis Orfanos, Jaime Caro

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 104 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
104citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

104 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Application of multicriteria decision analysis in health care: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015
    Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

44 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kevin MarshEvidera, 26-26 Hammersmith Grove, London, W6 7HA, UK, kevin.marsh@evidera.com.
Tereza Lanitis
David Neasham
Panagiotis Orfanos
Jaime Caro

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study is to support those undertaking a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) by reviewing the approaches adopted in healthcare MCDAs to date, how these varied with the objective of the study, and the lessons learned from this experience. Searches of EMBASE and MEDLINE identified 40 studies that provided 41 examples of MCDA in healthcare. Data were extracted on the objective of the study, methods employed, and decision makers' and study authors' reflections on the advantages and disadvantages of the methods. The recent interest in MCDA in healthcare is mirrored in an increase in the application of MCDA to evaluate healthcare interventions. Of the studies identified, the first was published in 1990, but more than half were published since 2011. They were undertaken in 18 different countries, and were designed to support investment (coverage and reimbursement), authorization, prescription, and research funding allocation decisions. Many intervention types were assessed: pharmaceuticals, public health interventions, screening, surgical interventions, and devices. Most used the value measurement approach and scored performance using predefined scales. Beyond these similarities, a diversity of different approaches were adopted, with only limited correspondence between the approach and the type of decision or product. Decision makers consulted as part of these studies, as well as the authors of the studies are positive about the potential of MCDA to improve decision making. Further work is required, however, to develop guidance for those undertaking MCDA.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDecision Support TechniquesDelivery of Health CareHumansPublic HealthReimbursement Mechanisms

Identifiers

PMID24504851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.