ArticleFrontiers in health services2025
A multi-stakeholder multicriteria decision analysis for implantable medical devices assessment in China.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Design-Driven Innovation Path of Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence in the Field of Healthcare: Theory, Practice, and Future Prospects.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Construction of a comprehensive value assessment framework for renal denervation therapy: a decision-support tool for Chinese hospital management.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to develop a standardized multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework tailored for implantable medical devices in China, addressing the challenges of inconsistent evaluation processes under China's evolving healthcare financing policies. Methods: A mixed-methods design combining a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and MCDA was employed. Six criteria (clinical effectiveness, clinical safety, innovation, disease severity, implementation capacity, and cost) were identified through literature reviews and expert consultations. A DCE survey with 540 multi-stakeholder participants (decision-makers, HTA experts, clinicians, hospital administrators, and citizens) was conducted to derive criterion weights using mixed logit models. The framework was validated through a real-world case study assessing endoscopic linear staplers. Results: Clinical safety (35.45%) and cost (27.94%) emerged as the most critical criteria, followed by implementation capacity (16.56%) and clinical effectiveness (15.07%). Innovation (2.54%) and disease severity (2.44%) received minimal weight. The MCDA application demonstrated high inter-rater consistency (CV < 0.25). Conclusions: This study proposes a transparent, stakeholder-driven framework for evaluating implantable medical devices, specifically designed to support China's healthcare policies. The framework ensures that healthcare decisions are grounded in clinical effectiveness, safety, and long-term economic viability.
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.