Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31172296›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical systems2019

Mobile-Based Patient Monitoring Systems: A Prioritisation Framework Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques.

E M Almahdi, A A Zaidan, B B Zaidan, M A Alsalem, O S Albahri, A S Albahri

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical systems, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 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. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors.

E M AlmahdiDepartment of Computing, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia.
A A ZaidanDepartment of Computing, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia. aws.alaa@gmail.com.
B B ZaidanDepartment of Computing, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia.
M A AlsalemDepartment of Computing, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia.
O S AlbahriDepartment of Computing, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia.
A S AlbahriDepartment of Computing, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study presents a prioritisation framework for mobile patient monitoring systems (MPMSs) based on multicriteria analysis in architectural components. This framework selects the most appropriate system amongst available MPMSs for the telemedicine environment. Prioritisation of MPMSs is a challenging task due to (a) multiple evaluation criteria, (b) importance of criteria, (c) data variation and (d) unmeasurable values. The secondary data presented as the decision evaluation matrix include six systems (namely, Yale-National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), advanced health and disaster aid network, personalised health monitoring, CMS, MobiHealth and NTU) as alternatives and 13 criteria (namely, supported number of sensors, sensor front-end (SFE) communication, SFE to mobile base unit (MBU) communications, display of biosignals on the MBU, storage of biosignals on the MBU, intra-body area network (BAN) communication problems, extra-BAN communication problems, extra-BAN communication technology, extra-BAN communication protocols, back-end system communication technology, intended geographic area of use, end-to-end security and reported trial problems) based on the architectural components of MPMSs. These criteria are adopted from the most relevant studies and are found to be applicable to this study. The prioritisation framework is developed in three stages. (1) The unmeasurable values of the MPMS evaluation criteria in the adopted decision evaluation matrix based on expert opinion are represented by using the best-worst method (BWM). (2) The importance of the evaluation criteria based on the architectural components of the MPMS is determined by using the BWM. (3) The VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) method is utilised to rank the MPMSs according to the determined importance of the evaluation criteria and the adopted decision matrix. For validation, mean ± standard deviation is used to verify the similarity of systematic prioritisations objectively. The following results are obtained. (1) The BWM represents the unmeasurable values of the MPMS evaluation criteria. (2) The BWM is suitable for weighing the evaluation criteria based on the architectural components of the MPMS. (3) VIKOR is suitable for solving the MPMS prioritisation problem. Moreover, the internal and external VIKOR group decision making are approximately the same, with the best MPMS being 'Yale-NASA' and the worst MPMS being 'NTU'. (4) For the objective validation, remarkable differences are observed between the group scores, which indicate the similarity of internal and external prioritisation results.

Indexed as

Decision MakingWireless TechnologyAlgorithmsMonitoring, PhysiologicTelemedicineBWMMobile patient monitoring systemMulticriteria decision-making techniqueVIKOR

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.