Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29987525›Full record

ArticleAdvances in therapy2018

Applying Reflective Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Patient-Clinician Shared Decision-Making on the Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NET) in the Spanish Context.

Monika Wagner, Dima Samaha, Jesus Cuervo, Harshila Patel, Marta Martinez, William M O'Neil, Paula Jimenez-Fonseca

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Monika WagnerAnalytica Laser, Montreal, Canada. m.wagner@analytica-laser.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7654-1175
Dima SamahaAnalytica Laser, London, UK.
Jesus CuervoAnalytica Laser, Madrid, Spain.
Harshila PatelAnalytica Laser, Montreal, Canada.
Marta MartinezAnalytica Laser, Madrid, Spain.
William M O'NeilAnalytica Laser, Montreal, Canada.
Paula Jimenez-FonsecaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain.
Centro Laser · ITHospital Universitario Central de Asturias · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUnresectable, well-differentiated nonfunctioning gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) can be monitored (watchful waiting, WW) or treated with systemic therapy such as somatostatin analogues (SSAs) to delay progression. We applied a reflective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) shared-decision framework (previously developed for the USA) to explore what matters to Spanish patients and clinicians considering GEP-NET treatment options.

methodsThe EVIDEM-derived framework was updated and adapted to the Spanish context. During a Chatham House session, five patients and six physicians assigned criteria weights using hierarchical point allocation and direct rating scale (alternative analysis). Informed by synthesized evidence embedded in the framework, participants scored how each criterion favored SSA treatment (reference case lanreotide) or WW and shared insights and knowledge. Weights and scores were combined into value contributions (norm. weight × score/5), which were added across criteria to derive the relative benefit-risk balance (RBRB, scale - 1 to + 1). Exploratory comparisons to US study findings were performed.

resultsFocusing on intervention outcomes (effectiveness, patient-reported, and safety), the mean RBRB favored treatment over WW (+ 0.32 ± 0.24), with the largest contributions from progression-free survival (+ 0.11 ± SD 0.07), fatal adverse events (+ 0.06 ± SD 0.08), and impact on HRQoL (+ 0.04 ± SD 0.04). Consideration of modulating criteria (type of benefit, need, costs, evidence, and feasibility) increased the RBRB to + 0.50 ± 0.14, with type of therapeutic benefit (+ 0.10 ± SD 0.08) and quality of evidence (+ 0.08 ± SD 0.06) contributing most towards treatment. Alternative weighting yielded similar results. Results were broadly comparable to those derived from the US study.

conclusionThe multicriteria framework helped Spanish patients and clinicians identify and express what matters to them. The approach is transferable across decision-making contexts.

fundingIPSEN Pharma.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPatient PreferenceDecision Support TechniquesHumansIntestinal NeoplasmsNeuroendocrine TumorsPancreatic NeoplasmsQuality of LifeRisk AssessmentSomatostatinStomach NeoplasmsSomatostatinEVIDEMGastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumorsMCDAShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID29987525
PMCPMC6096971
OpenAlexW2848061921

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.