ReviewHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2015
Multicriteria decision analysis in oncology.
Review in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Integrating Shared Decision-Making into Undergraduate Oncology Education: A Pedagogical Framework.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluating the Efficacy of Probiotics in IBS Treatment Using a Systematic Review of Clinical Trials and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis.Nutrients · 2022Pooled it
- The Contribution of Dostarlimab to First-Line Treatment of Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer in Spain: A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Developing and validating a multi-criteria decision analytic tool to assess the value of cancer clinical trials: evaluating cancer clinical trial value.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2023Article
- Treatment Preference for Alzheimer's Disease: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis with Caregivers, Neurologists, and Payors.Neurology and therapy · 2023Article
- Early Access to Medicines: Use of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) as a Decision Tool in Catalonia (Spain).Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- How to Value Orphan Drugs? A Review of European Value Assessment Frameworks.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Review
- Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA): testing a proposed MCDA framework for orphan drugs.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2017Article
- The Value of Medicines: A Crucial but Vague Concept.PharmacoEconomics · 2016Review
- Clinical preference for factors in treatment of geriatric depression.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2015Article
- Addressing preference heterogeneity in public health policy by combining Cluster Analysis and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Proof of Method.Health economics review · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere has been a growing interest in the development and application of alternative decision-making frameworks within health care, including multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA). Even though the literature includes several reviews on MCDA methods, applications of MCDA in oncology are lacking.
aimThe aim of this paper is to discuss a rationale for the use of MCDA in oncology. In this context, the following research question emerged: How can MCDA be used to develop a clinical decision support tool in oncology?
methodsIn this paper, a brief background on decision making is presented, followed by an overview of MCDA methods and process. The paper discusses some applications of MCDA, proposes research opportunities in the context of oncology and presents an illustrative example of how MCDA can be applied to oncology.
findingsDecisions in oncology involve trade-offs between possible benefits and harms. MCDA can help analyse trade-off preferences. A wide range of MCDA methods exist. Each method has its strengths and weaknesses. Choosing the appropriate method varies depending on the source and nature of information used to inform decision making. The literature review identified eight studies. The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was the most often used method in the identified studies.
conclusionOverall, MCDA appears to be a promising tool that can be used to assist clinical decision making in oncology. Nonetheless, field testing is desirable before MCDA becomes an established decision-making tool in this field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.