Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27747207›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2016

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Assessment and Appraisal of Orphan Drugs.

Georgi Iskrov, Tsonka Miteva-Katrandzhieva, Rumen Stefanov

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
20.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. 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
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. An innovative tool to prioritize the assessment of investigational COVID-19 therapeutics: A pilot project.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Georgi IskrovDepartment of Social Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University of Plovdiv, Plovdiv, Bulgaria; Institute for Rare Diseases, Plovdiv, Bulgaria.
Tsonka Miteva-KatrandzhievaDepartment of Social Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University of Plovdiv, Plovdiv, Bulgaria; Institute for Rare Diseases, Plovdiv, Bulgaria.
Rumen StefanovDepartment of Social Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University of Plovdiv, Plovdiv, Bulgaria; Institute for Rare Diseases, Plovdiv, Bulgaria.
Medical University Plovdiv · BG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLimited resources and expanding expectations push all countries and types of health systems to adopt new approaches in priority setting and resources allocation. Despite best efforts, it is difficult to reconcile all competing interests, and trade-offs are inevitable. This is why multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has played a major role in recent uptake of value-based reimbursement. MCDA framework enables exploration of stakeholders' preferences, as well as explicit organization of broad range of criteria on which real-world decisions are made. Assessment and appraisal of orphan drugs tend to be one of the most complicated health technology assessment (HTA) tasks. Access to market approved orphan therapies remains an issue. Early constructive dialog among rare disease stakeholders and elaboration of orphan drug-tailored decision support tools could set the scene for ongoing accumulation of evidence, as well as for proper reimbursement decision-making.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to create an MCDA value measurement model to assess and appraise orphan drugs. This was achieved by exploring the preferences on decision criteria's weights and performance scores through a stakeholder-representative survey and a focus group discussion that were both organized in Bulgaria. RESULTS/

conclusionDecision criteria that describe the health technology's characteristics were unanimously agreed as the most important group of reimbursement considerations. This outcome, combined with the high individual weight of disease severity and disease burden criteria, underlined some of the fundamental principles of health care - equity and fairness. Our study proved that strength of evidence may be a key criterion in orphan drug assessment and appraisal. Evidence is used not only to shape reimbursement decision-making but also to lend legitimacy to policies pursued. The need for real-world data on orphan drugs was largely stressed. Improved knowledge on MCDA feasibility and integration to HTA is of paramount importance, as progress in medicine and innovative health technologies should correspond to patient, health-care system, and societal values.

Indexed as

decision-makinghealth technology assessmentmulti-criteria decision analysisorphan drugsrare diseasesreimbursement

Identifiers

PMID27747207
PMCPMC5042964
OpenAlexW2526574420

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.