ArticleGlobal & regional health technology assessment
Integrating MCDA and economic evaluation into a rule-based framework for hospital-level health technology assessment.
Article in Global & regional health technology assessment. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) supports evidence-based decision-making, but integrating economic evaluation within Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) remains challenging in hospital-level HTA. This study developed and preliminarily applied an integrated decision-support framework combining MCDA, economic evaluation, and contextualized evidence assessment to support adoption recommendations. Methods: A pragmatic digital framework integrated MCDA with Budget Impact Analysis (BIA) and Cost-Consequence Analysis (CCA) within a rule-based decision matrix. The economic module estimated cost per patient, incremental cost, budget impact, cost-consequence outputs, and, when appropriate, a supportive soft ICER. Evidence was assessed through structured critical appraisal, Summary of Findings tables, and outcome relevance, using a GRADE-informed approach mapped onto the predefined 0-1-3-5-7-9 MCDA evidence scale. Operational robustness was assessed through Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and self-audit controls. Results: In a case study comparing disposable and reusable continence care systems, the disposable option showed a lower MCDA score than the current standard (2.60 vs 4.80; ΔMCDA = -2.20) and a higher cost per patient (€1.00 vs €0.65; incremental cost €0.35). Although the 3-year budget impact was €2,634 and remained within the institutional affordability threshold, the technology was classified as dominated because it generated lower value at a higher cost. The final recommendation was not favorable for routine adoption. Conclusion: The framework supports transparent integration of MCDA and economic evaluation in hospital-level HTA and helps distinguish affordability from overall value. The case study suggests that technologies should not be adopted solely because their budget impact is acceptable when the value-risk profile is unfavorable. Further validation across technologies and settings is required.
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.