SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Multicriteria decision analysis in the Italian healthcare context: a review of applications and methodological approaches.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) has gained increasing relevance in healthcare as an approach for evaluating options across multiple criteria. This study aims to provide an overview of MCDA applications in Italy, examining their decision contexts, the preference elicitation methods employed, and the stakeholder groups involved. A literature review was conducted across PubMed and Google Scholar (searches up to November 2025), supplemented by Italian studies identified in an international systematic review. For each study, data were collected on publication year, decision context, preference elicitation methods, and stakeholder involvement. Nineteen studies met the eligibility criteria, 16 of which were published after 2017. Most applications concerned priority-setting decisions related to coverage, reimbursement or funding of healthcare interventions, particularly the evaluation of drugs, therapeutic products, and other health technologies. Preference elicitation methods were predominantly compositional, with direct rating and the Analytic Hierarchy Process being the most frequently applied techniques; decompositional approaches were rarely used. Approximately half of the studies implemented a multi-stakeholder approach. Clinicians were the most frequently included group, followed by healthcare providers, while other stakeholder categories, including patients, were less commonly involved. The use of MCDA in Italy is progressively increasing and generally aligns with global trends. However, important opportunities for further development remain. These include extending MCDA applications to earlier stages of the technology lifecycle, adopting more rigorous and robust preference elicitation techniques, and strengthening its multi-stakeholder orientation, particularly by enhancing patient involvement, in order to improve the methodological quality and policy relevance of future MCDA applications in the Italian context.
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.