Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28795254›Full record

ArticleHealth care management science2018

An efficient method for kidney allocation problem: a credibility-based fuzzy common weights data envelopment analysis approach.

Sahar Ahmadvand, Mir Saman Pishvaee

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health care management science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

2 authors.

Sahar AhmadvandSchool of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science & Technology, Tehran, Iran.
Mir Saman PishvaeeSchool of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science & Technology, Tehran, Iran. pishvaee@iust.ac.ir.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6389-6308

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Given the perennial imbalance and chronic scarcity between the demand for and supply of available organs, organ allocation is one of the most critical decisions in the management of organ transplantation networks. Organ allocation systems undergo rapid revisions for the sake of improved outcomes in terms of both equity and medical efficiency. This paper presents a Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)-based model to evaluate the efficiency of possible patient-organ pairs for kidney allocation in order to enhance the fitness of organ allocation under inherent uncertainty in such problem. Eligible patient-kidney pairs are regarded as decision making units (DMUs) in a Credibility-based Fuzzy Common Weights DEA (CFCWDEA) approach and are ranked based on efficiency scores. Using a common set of weights for all DMUs ensures a high degree of fairness in the assessment and ranking of DMUs. The proposed model is also the first allocation method capable of coping with the vague and intervallic medical and nonmedical allocation factors by the aid of fuzzy programming. Verification and validation of the proposed approach are performed in two steps using a real case study from the Iranian kidney allocation system. First, the superiority of the proposed deterministic model in enhancing allocation outcomes is demonstrated and analyzed. Second, the applicability of the proposed fuzzy DEA method is demonstrated using a series of data realizations for different credibility levels.

Indexed as

Fuzzy LogicKidney TransplantationAge FactorsHealth Care RationingHumansIranLife ExpectancyModels, TheoreticalReproducibility of ResultsTime FactorsTissue and Organ ProcurementCredibility measureData envelopment analysisKidney allocationOrgan allocationOrgan transplantation

Identifiers

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.