Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39180132›Full record

ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2024

The value of the reflective discussion in decision-making using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA): an example of determining the value contribution of tabelecleucel for the treatment of the Epstein Barr virus-positive post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (EBV

Xavier Badia, Miguel Ángel Calleja, Vicente Escudero-Vilaplana, Antonio Pérez-Martínez, José Luis Piñana, José Luis Poveda, Joan-Antoni Vallès

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2024. 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. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Xavier BadiaOmakase Consulting S.L., Barcelona y Madrid, Spain. xbadia@omakaseconsulting.com.ORCID 0000-0001-7568-2550
Miguel Ángel CallejaHospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Seville, Spain.
Vicente Escudero-VilaplanaHospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain.
Antonio Pérez-MartínezUniversity Hospital La Paz, Madrid, Spain.
José Luis PiñanaUniversity Clinical Hospital of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
José Luis PovedaLa Fe University and Polytechnic Hospital, Valencia, Spain.
Joan-Antoni VallèsCatalan Institute of Health, Catalonia, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to assess the contribution of the reflective multidisciplinary discussion in determining the value contribution of innovative drugs through the multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). This methodology considers all relevant criteria for healthcare decision-making in a global, transparent, and systematic manner and from the perspective of relevant stakeholders. The determination of value contribution of tabelecleucel for the treatment of Epstein-Barr virus-positive post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (EBV

resultsTabelecleucel obtained a value contribution score of 0.63 and increased to 0.75 after the reflective discussion. EBV

conclusionsThe study shows that the MCDA methodology is a useful tool for decision-making on innovative treatments for the management of rare diseases. It also highlights the importance of reflective multidisciplinary discussion for its ability to resolve doubts or misinterpretations of experts, subsequently allowing to obtain more consistent and reliable results on the value contribution of the drug, being potentially more positive.

Indexed as

Epstein-Barr Virus InfectionsLymphoproliferative DisordersDecision MakingDecision Support TechniquesHerpesvirus 4, HumanHumansDecision-makingEBV + PTLDMCDAReflective discussion

Identifiers

PMID39180132
PMCPMC11342625

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.