ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2018
The Feasibility of Sophisticated Multicriteria Support for Clinical Decisions.
Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Rating Tool to Prioritize Real-World Evidence Questions for the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Effects of Computerized Decision Support Systems on Practitioner Performance and Patient Outcomes: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMulticriteria decision-making (MCDM) methods are well-suited to serve as the foundation for clinical decision support systems. To do so, however, they need to be appropriate for use in busy clinical settings. We compared decision-making processes and outcomes of patient-level analyses done with a range of multicriteria methods that vary in ease of use and intensity of decision support, 2 factors that could affect their ease of implementation into practice.
methodsWe conducted a series of Internet surveys to compare the effects of 5 multicriteria methods that differ in user interface and required user input format on decisions regarding selection of a preferred method for lowering the risk of cardiovascular disease. The study sample consisted of members of an online Internet panel maintained by Fluidsurveys, an Internet survey company. Study outcomes were changes in preferred option, decision confidence, preparation for decision making, the Values Clarification and Decisional Uncertainty subscales of the Decisional Conflict Scale, and method ease of use.
resultsThe frequency of changes in the preferred option ranged from 9% to 38%, P < 0.001, and rose progressively as the level of decision support provided by the MCDM method increased. The proportion of respondents who rated the method as easy ranged from 57% to 79% and differed significantly among MCDM methods, P = 0.003, but was not consistently related to intensity of decision support or ease of use.
conclusionDecision support based on MCDM methods is not necessarily limited by decreases in ease of use. This result suggests that it is possible to develop decision support tools using sophisticated multicriteria techniques suitable for use in routine clinical care settings.
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.