Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26626279›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2015

Estimating the value of medical treatments to patients using probabilistic multi criteria decision analysis.

Henk Broekhuizen, Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn, A Brett Hauber, Jeroen P Jansen, Maarten J IJzerman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Personalization of Medical Treatment Decisions: Simplifying Complex Models while Maintaining Patient Health Outcomes.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Article
  9. Partial Personalization of Medical Treatment Decisions: Adverse Effects and Possible Solutions.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Article
  10. Personalizing Medical Treatment Decisions: Integrating Meta-analytic Treatment Comparisons with Patient-Specific Risks and Preferences.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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.

Henk BroekhuizenDepartment of Health Technology and Services Research, MIRA Institute, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. h.broekhuizen@utwente.nl.
Catharina G M Groothuis-OudshoornDepartment of Health Technology and Services Research, MIRA Institute, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. c.g.m.oudshoorn@utwente.nl.
A Brett HauberRTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. abhauber@rti.org.
Jeroen P JansenDepartment Public Health and Community Medicine, School of Medicine, TUFTS University, Boston, MA, USA. jeroen.jansen@tufts.edu.
Maarten J IJzermanDepartment of Health Technology and Services Research, MIRA Institute, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. m.j.ijzerman@utwente.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEstimating the value of medical treatments to patients is an essential part of healthcare decision making, but is mostly done implicitly and without consulting patients. Multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been proposed for the valuation task, while stated preference studies are increasingly used to measure patient preferences. In this study we propose a methodology for using stated preferences to weigh clinical evidence in an MCDA model that includes uncertainty in both patient preferences and clinical evidence explicitly.

methodsA probabilistic MCDA model with an additive value function was developed and illustrated using a case on hypothetical treatments for depression. The patient-weighted values were approximated with Monte Carlo simulations and compared to expert-weighted results. Decision uncertainty was calculated as the probability of rank reversal for the first rank. Furthermore, scenario analyses were done to assess the relative impact of uncertainty in preferences and clinical evidence, and of assuming uniform preference distributions.

resultsThe patient-weighted values for drug A, drug B, drug C, and placebo were 0.51 (95% CI: 0.48 to 0.54), 0.51 (95% CI: 0.48 to 0.54), 0.54 (0.49 to 0.58), and 0.15 (95% CI: 0.13 to 0.17), respectively. Drug C was the most preferred treatment and the rank reversal probability for first rank was 27%. This probability decreased to 18% when uncertainty in performances was not included and increased to 41% when uncertainty in criterion weights was not included. With uniform preference distributions, the first rank reversal probability increased to 61%. The expert-weighted values for drug A, drug B, drug C, and placebo were 0.67 (95% CI: 0.65 to 0.68), 0.57 (95% CI: 0.56 to 0.59), 0.67 (95% CI: 0.61 to 0.71), and 0.19 (95% CI: 0.17 to 0.21). The rank reversal probability for the first rank according to experts was 49%.

conclusionsPreferences elicited from patients can be used to weigh clinical evidence in a probabilistic MCDA model. The resulting treatment values can be contrasted to results from experts, and the impact of uncertainty can be quantified using rank probabilities. Future research should focus on integrating the model with regulatory decision frameworks and on including other types of uncertainty.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesModels, StatisticalHumansMonte Carlo MethodPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient Satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID26626279
PMCPMC4667469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.