Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38300703›Full record

ReviewJMIR medical informatics2024

Multicriteria Decision-Making in Diabetes Management and Decision Support: Systematic Review.

Tahmineh Aldaghi, Jan Muzik

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR medical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

2 authors.

Tahmineh Aldaghi *Spin-off Companies and Research Results Commercialization Center, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7949-4984
Jan Muzik *Department of Information and Communication Technologies in Medicine, Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4851-7899

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiabetes mellitus prevalence is increasing among adults and children around the world. Diabetes care is complex; examining the diet, type of medication, diabetes recognition, and willingness to use self-management tools are just a few of the challenges faced by diabetes clinicians who should make decisions about them. Making the appropriate decisions will reduce the cost of treatment, decrease the mortality rate of diabetes, and improve the life quality of patients with diabetes. Effective decision-making is within the realm of multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques.

objectiveThe central objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and applicability of MCDM methods and then introduce a novel categorization framework for their use in this field.

methodsThe literature search was focused on publications from 2003 to 2023. Finally, by applying the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) method, 63 articles were selected and examined.

resultsThe findings reveal that the use of MCDM methods in diabetes research can be categorized into 6 distinct groups: the selection of diabetes medications (19 publications), diabetes diagnosis (12 publications), meal recommendations (8 publications), diabetes management (14 publications), diabetes complication (7 publications), and estimation of diabetes prevalence (3 publications).

conclusionsOur review showed a significant portion of the MCDM literature on diabetes. The research highlights the benefits of using MCDM techniques, which are practical and effective for a variety of diabetes challenges.

Indexed as

analytical hierarchy processblood sugardecision makingdecision supportdiabetesdiabetes managementdiabetes recognitiondiabeticdigital health toolglucoseglucose managementmulti-criteria decision makingreview methodologyself-managementsystematic reviewtechnique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution

Identifiers

PMID38300703
PMCPMC10870205

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.