Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31006056›Full record

SynthesisThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2019

Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art.

Mónica D Oliveira, Inês Mataloto, Panos Kanavos

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Public deliberation on health gain measures.Health affairs scholar · 2024
    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.

Mónica D OliveiraCEG-IST, Universidade de Lisboa, Avenida Rovisco Pais, 1049-001, Lisbon, Portugal. monica.oliveira@tecnico.ulisboa.pt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4053-9214
Inês MatalotoCEG-IST, Universidade de Lisboa, Avenida Rovisco Pais, 1049-001, Lisbon, Portugal.
Panos KanavosDepartment of Health Policy and Medical Technology Research Group, LSE Health London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMulti-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) concepts, models and tools have been used increasingly in health technology assessment (HTA), with several studies pointing out practical and theoretical issues related to its use. This study provides a critical review of published studies on MCDA in the context of HTA by assessing their methodological quality and summarising methodological challenges.

methodsA systematic review was conducted to identify studies discussing, developing or reviewing the use of MCDA in HTA using aggregation approaches. Studies were classified according to publication time and type, country of study, technology type and study type. The PROACTIVE-S approach was constructed and used to analyse methodological quality. Challenges and limitations reported in eligible studies were collected and summarised; this was followed by a critical discussion on research requirements to address the identified challenges.

results129 journal articles were eligible for review, 56% of which were published in 2015-2017; 42% focused on pharmaceuticals; 36, 26 and 18% reported model applications, issues regarding MCDA implementation analyses, and proposing frameworks, respectively. Poor compliance with good methodological practice (< 25% complying studies) was found regarding behavioural analyses, discussion of model assumptions and uncertainties, modelling of value functions, and dealing with judgment inconsistencies. The five most reported challenges related to evidence and data synthesis; value system differences and participant selection issues; participant difficulties; methodological complexity and resource balance; and criteria and attributes modelling. A critical discussion on ways to address these challenges ensues. DISCUSSION: Results highlight the need for advancement in robust methodologies, procedures and tools to improve methodological quality of MCDA in HTA studies. Research pathways include developing new model features, good practice guidelines, technologies to enable participation and behavioural research.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalHumansResearchHealth technology assessmentMCDA modellingMethodological challengesMethodological qualityMulti-criteria decision analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31006056
PMCPMC6652169

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.