Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34120491›Full record

ArticleInquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing

Improving Hospital Based Medical Procurement Decisions with Health Technology Assessment and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis.

Chai Yang, Yanjun Wang, Xiaoxuan Hu, Yujun Chen, Liting Qian, Fuchang Li, Wei Gu, Qiang Liu, Di Wang, Xiaoqing Chai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Trend, application, and reporting of Mini-health technology assessment: an evidence mapping.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025
    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

10 authors.

Chai YangHefei University of Technology, Hefei, P.R. China.
Yanjun WangHefei University of Technology, Hefei, P.R. China.
Xiaoxuan HuHefei University of Technology, Hefei, P.R. China.ORCID 0000-0002-2579-1385
Yujun ChenThe First Affiliated Hospital of University of Sciences and Technology of China, Hefei, P.R. China.
Liting QianThe First Affiliated Hospital of University of Sciences and Technology of China, Hefei, P.R. China.
Fuchang LiYunnan Normal University, Kunming, Yunnan, P.R. China.
Wei GuThe First Affiliated Hospital of University of Sciences and Technology of China, Hefei, P.R. China.
Qiang LiuChina Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, P.R. China.
Di WangThe First Affiliated Hospital of University of Sciences and Technology of China, Hefei, P.R. China.
Xiaoqing ChaiThe First Affiliated Hospital of University of Sciences and Technology of China, Hefei, P.R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This research proposes a new medical procurement decision-making tool named Evaluation of Medical Technology Procurement (EMTP), which combines Mini-health Technology Assessment (Mini HTA) with the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), as well as the intuitionistic linguistic multi-criteria group decision model for multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). This tool was applied to a medical device procurement decision in a large provincial general hospital with more than 5000 beds in China as a case study. Specifically, the AHP evaluation framework is first established to determine the evaluation dimensions and criteria. This goal is achieved by applying the AdHopHTA Mini-HTA template and gathering data from questionnaires completed by experts from 33 major public hospitals in Anhui Province, China. The professionals within the application hospital were invited to evaluate the alternative products in a pairwise comparison and obtain a ranking of their advantages and disadvantages. This goal is achieved using the intuitionistic linguistic fuzzy model to deal with the subjectivity and uncertainty that may be present in the professional evaluation by experts in different fields. At the same time, the Keeney-Raiffa MCDA (KRM) method was used to demonstrate the accuracy of the application results. The results show that our tool can achieve the same effect as the verification method while being more efficient, easier to use, and requiring fewer participants. The advantages and disadvantages of several evaluation methods combined with multi-criteria methods are discussed, including verification methods, pointing out the advantages and limitations of this research tool as well as the prospects for the future.

Indexed as

HospitalsTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalChinaDecision MakingDecision Support TechniquesHumansUncertaintyanalytic hierarchy processclinical decision-makinghealth technology assessmenthospitalsmulti-criteria decision analysis

Identifiers

PMID34120491
PMCPMC8202291

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.