ArticleDiscover oncology2025
Evaluation of drug options for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) treatment using the analytical hierarchy process improves decision-making transparency.
Article in Discover oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Improved Suction Efficiency and User Satisfaction With a Novel Portable Manual Suction Device: A Simulation-Based Pre-Hospital Study.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
- Awareness of Risk Factors, Warning Signs, Beliefs, and Practices Toward Gastric Cancer Screening Among the General Population in Herat, Afghanistan: A Cross-Sectional Study.Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) poses considerable challenges in selecting appropriate treatments due to the interplay of factors such as drug efficacy, safety, cost, resistance, and patient compliance. To address these complexities, this study employs the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) as a structured and transparent decision-making framework for evaluating and ranking drug therapies for EOC. Using expert-driven pairwise comparisons, the study analyzes six key criteria: therapeutic efficacy, safety, route of administration, economic viability, patient compliance, and drug resistance. The AHP methodology assigns weighted priorities to each criterion and identifies the most effective and feasible treatment options based on these weights. Findings reveal that therapeutic efficacy holds the highest priority, followed by safety, while route of administration and economic viability are of moderate importance. Patient compliance and drug resistance, although relevant, ranked lower in the decision hierarchy. The results underscore the importance of prioritizing highly effective and safe drugs, while also factoring in cost and practical delivery considerations. This research demonstrates that AHP offers a robust, transparent tool for clinical decision-making, helping healthcare professionals systematically navigate complex treatment choices for EOC. By integrating expert judgment with structured evaluation, the study enhances drug selection strategies and supports improved patient outcomes in EOC management.
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.