ArticleMDM policy & practice
The Development and Pilot Study of a Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Compare Patient and Provider Priorities around Amputation-Level Outcomes.
Article in MDM policy & practice. 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.
- AMPDECIDE amputation level patient decision aids: a feasibility study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Practical applications of methods to incorporate patient preferences into medical decision models: a scoping review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparing Patient and Provider Priorities Around Amputation Level Outcomes Using Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis.Annals of vascular surgery · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Highlights: Patients and providers have successfully completed our MCDA, and patients feel the MCDA may be useful in clinical practice.We encountered several methodologic challenges and identified approaches to ease participant burden.When data are sparse, using the Sheffield elicitation framework is helpful in creating a performance matrix, although patients relied largely on their amputation experiences to complete the exercise. Blinding the alternatives may help patients better understand the process.
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.