ArticlePloS one2015
Use of the analytic hierarchy process for medication decision-making in type 2 diabetes.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process in healthcare research: A systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2015Pooled it
- An integrated multi-criteria decision-making model for long-term planning of UAVs in disaster management.PloS one · 2026Article
- Application of Fuzzy AHP for Medication Decision Making in Iron-Chelating Medications for Thalassemia.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Multicriteria Decision-Making in Diabetes Management and Decision Support: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Review
- Prioritizing the glucose-lowering medicines for type 2 diabetes by an extended fuzzy decision-making approach with target-based attributes.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2022Article
- Prioritizing intervention measures to prevent inappropriate self-medication practices using the Analytical Hierarchy Process.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2022Article
- Article
- Merits, features, and desiderata to be considered when developing electronic health records with embedded clinical decision support systems in Palestinian hospitals: a consensus study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Article
- An Analytical Mobile App for Shared Decision Making About Prenatal Screening: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2019Article
- Quantified patient preferences for lifestyle intervention programs for diabetes prevention-a protocol for a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2018Article
- The Feasibility of Sophisticated Multicriteria Support for Clinical Decisions.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2018Article
- The Safety of Generic Prescription Drugs in the United States.Drug safety · 2018Article
- Combining and Using the Utrecht Method and the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Facilitate Professional and Ethical Deliberation and Decision Making in Complementary and Alternative Medicine: A Case Study among a Panel of Stakeholders.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2018Article
- The use of multi-criteria decision making models in evaluating anesthesia method options in circumcision surgery.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2017Article
- Article
- Unexploited Antineoplastic Effects of Commercially Available Anti-Diabetic Drugs.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2016Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo investigate the feasibility and utility of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for medication decision-making in type 2 diabetes.
methodsWe conducted an AHP with nine diabetes experts using structured interviews to rank add-on therapies (to metformin) for type 2 diabetes. During the AHP, participants compared treatment alternatives relative to eight outcomes (hemoglobin A1c-lowering and seven potential harms) and the relative importance of the different outcomes. The AHP model and instrument were pre-tested and pilot-tested prior to use. Results were discussed and an evaluation of the AHP was conducted during a group session. We conducted the quantitative analysis using Expert Choice software with the ideal mode to determine the priority of treatment alternatives.
resultsParticipants judged exenatide to be the best add-on therapy followed by sitagliptin, sulfonylureas, and then pioglitazone. Maximizing benefit was judged 21% more important than minimizing harm. Minimizing severe hypoglycemia was judged to be the most important harm to avoid. Exenatide was the best overall alternative if the importance of minimizing harms was prioritized completely over maximizing benefits. Participants reported that the AHP improved transparency, consistency, and an understanding of others' perspectives and agreed that the results reflected the views of the group.
conclusionsThe AHP is feasible and useful to make decisions about diabetes medications. Future studies which incorporate stakeholder preferences should evaluate other decision contexts, objectives, and treatments.
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.