Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33552457›Full record

ArticleJournal of healthcare engineering2021

Comparative Evaluation of the Treatment of COVID-19 with Multicriteria Decision-Making Techniques.

Figen Sarigul Yildirim, Murat Sayan, Tamer Sanlidag, Berna Uzun, Dilber Uzun Ozsahin, Ilker Ozsahin

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of healthcare engineering, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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 at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Figen Sarigul YildirimHealth Science University, Antalya Education and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Antalya 07050, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0001-8646-2203
Murat SayanFaculty of Medicine, Clinical Laboratory, PCR Unit, Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-4374-7193
Tamer SanlidagDESAM Institute, Near East University, 99138 Nicosia/TRNC, Mersin 10, Turkey.
Berna UzunDESAM Institute, Near East University, 99138 Nicosia/TRNC, Mersin 10, Turkey.
Dilber Uzun OzsahinDESAM Institute, Near East University, 99138 Nicosia/TRNC, Mersin 10, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-3873-1410
Ilker OzsahinDESAM Institute, Near East University, 99138 Nicosia/TRNC, Mersin 10, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-3141-6805
Mersin Üniversitesi · TRKocaeli Üniversitesi · TRManisa Celal Bayar University · TRNear East University · CYSağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first reported in December 2019. Until now, many drugs and methods have been used in the treatment of the disease. However, no effective treatment option has been found and only case-based successes have been achieved so far. This study aims to evaluate COVID-19 treatment options using multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques. Methods: In this study, we evaluated the available COVID-19 treatment options by MCDM techniques, namely, fuzzy PROMETHEE and VIKOR. These techniques are based on the evaluation and comparison of complex and multiple criteria to evaluate the most appropriate alternative. We evaluated current treatment options including favipiravir (FPV), lopinavir/ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, interleukin-1 blocker, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), and plasma exchange. The criteria used for the analysis include side effects, method of administration of the drug, cost, turnover of plasma, level of fever, age, pregnancy, and kidney function. Results: The results showed that plasma exchange was the most preferred alternative, followed by FPV and IVIG, while hydroxychloroquine was the least favorable one. New alternatives could be considered once they are available, and weights could be assigned based on the opinions of the decision-makers (physicians/clinicians). The treatment methods that we evaluated with MCDM methods will be beneficial for both healthcare users and to rapidly end the global pandemic. The proposed method is applicable for analyzing the alternatives to the selection problem with quantitative and qualitative data. In addition, it allows the decision-maker to define the problem simply under uncertainty. Conclusions: Fuzzy PROMETHEE and VIKOR techniques are applied in aiding decision-makers in choosing the right treatment technique for the management of COVID-19.

Indexed as

COVID-19 Drug TreatmentDecision Support TechniquesFuzzy LogicAntiviral AgentsClinical Decision-MakingHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Antiviral Agents

Identifiers

PMID33552457
PMCPMC7831275
OpenAlexW3121928962

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.