SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2022
A multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool to purchase implantable medical devices in Egypt.
Synthesis in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Construction of a comprehensive value assessment framework for renal denervation therapy: a decision-support tool for Chinese hospital management.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Multicriteria Decision Analysis as a Tool for Assessing Vector-Borne Diseases Risk: The Case of Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever in Türkiye.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- A multi-stakeholder multicriteria decision analysis for implantable medical devices assessment in China.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
- Decision tool of medical endoscope maintenance service in Chinese hospitals: a conjoint analysis.BMC health services research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the availability of several similar medical devices performing the same function, choosing one for reimbursement is not easy, especially if purchased for a large number of patients. The objective of this project was to create a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool, that captures and compares all implantable medical devices' attributes, to provide an objective method for choosing among the available options in Egypt.
methodWe conducted a systematic review and expert interviews, to identify the relevant criteria for inclusion in the tool. Subsequently, a workshop was conducted, that involved experts in procuring and tendering medical devices. Experts chose the criteria, ranked them, assigned weights and scoring functions for each criterion, and then created the draft tool. A pilot phase followed; then, another workshop was conducted to fine-tune the tool. We readjusted the tool based on experts' experience with the draft tool.
resultsThe final tool included eight criteria, arranged according to their weightage: technical characteristics (29.4%), country of origin (19.5%), use in reference countries (14.9%), supply reliability (11.7%), previous use in tenders (9.0%), instant replacement within product variety (6.9%), pharmacovigilance (4.6%), and refund or replacement (4.0%). Each medical device was assessed on these eight criteria to achieve a final score, that was compared to the alternative devices' scores. Price is not included in the MCDA tool, but it will be added in the financial evaluation phase.
conclusionDecisionmakers could use the MCDA tool, to make evidence-based and objective decisions for purchasing implantable devices, in the Egyptian public sector. Post price evaluation, the product with the best value will be chosen for reimbursement. HIGHLIGHTS: We created an MCDA tool to help decision makers choose between alternative implantable medical devices in Egypt. The MCDA tool includes eight criteria, where price is evaluated as a separate step. "Technical characteristics" and "country of origin" criteria carried the highest weights, thus representing approximately 50% of the decision.
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.