ArticlePloS one2019
Comprehensive value assessment of drugs using a multi-criteria decision analysis: An example of targeted therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer treatment.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of physical exercise in advanced-stage cancer patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer medicine · 2022Pooled it
- The Contribution of Dostarlimab to First-Line Treatment of Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer in Spain: A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Benefit-risk evaluation of Fuzheng Yiliu Decoction combined with chemotherapy for treating non-small cell lung cancer using multicriteria decision analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Value contribution of trifluridine/tipiracil with bevacizumab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Catalonia using a multicriteria decision analysis.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2025Article
- An innovative tool to prioritize the assessment of investigational COVID-19 therapeutics: A pilot project.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2024Article
- Evaluation of antibody-based preventive alternatives for respiratory syncytial virus: a novel multi-criteria decision analysis framework and assessment of nirsevimab in Spain.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Reporting reimbursement price decisions for onco-hematology drugs in Spain.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Article
- Introduction of managed entry agreements in Korea: Problem, policy, and politics.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- How innovation can be defined, evaluated and rewarded in health technology assessment.Health economics review · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study is aimed toward establishing a decision-making model with multiple criteria for appraisal and reimbursement to compare the attitudes of different stakeholders toward various dimensions and criteria and to evaluate the five targeted therapies (bevacizumab, cetuximab, panitumumab, aflibercept, and regorafenib) for metastatic colorectal cancer.
methodThis study is a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) using a model that includes three dimensions and nine criteria. Both the overall and individual scores of the respective targeted therapies in different dimensions and criteria were calculated. A sensitivity analysis was carried out in order to evaluate the robustness of the research results. An interview-based questionnaire survey was applied to obtain the performance information for the targeted therapies and the weights of the dimensions and criteria.
resultsOverall, the clinical dimension had the highest weight, followed by the economic dimension, and finally, the social dimension. In the clinical dimension, the "comparative efficacy" criterion had the highest weight; in the economic dimension, the "cost-effectiveness" criterion" was given the greatest importance; in the social dimension, the "social concern and patient needs" criterion was given more emphasis. The overall values ranked from high to low as follows: cetuximab (overall score 3.3666), bevacizumab (3.3043), panitumumab (3.2030), aflibercept (2.8923) and regorafenib (2.8366).
conclusionsA comprehensive value assessment system combining "multi-dimensional criteria," "multi-perspectives," and an "integrative assessment" is necessary to evaluate the value of medicines. The results showed not only the order of weights of different dimensions or criteria, but also the rankings of the value of the targeted therapies.
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.