Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24555077›Full record

ArticleF1000Research2013

Systematic assessment of benefits and risks: study protocol for a multi-criteria decision analysis using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for comparative effectiveness research.

Nisa M Maruthur, Susan Joy, James Dolan, Jodi B Segal, Hasan M Shihab, Sonal Singh

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in F1000Research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Nisa M MaruthurDepartment of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore MD, 21205, USA ; Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore MD, 21205, USA ; The Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Baltimore MD, 21205, USA.
Susan JoyDepartment of Health Policy and Management, The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore MD, 21205, USA.
James DolanDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester NY, 14642, USA.
Jodi B SegalDepartment of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore MD, 21205, USA ; Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore MD, 21205, USA ; Department of Health Policy and Management, The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore MD, 21205, USA.
Hasan M ShihabDepartment of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore MD, 21205, USA.
Sonal SinghDepartment of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore MD, 21205, USA ; Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore MD, 21205, USA ; Department of Health Policy and Management, The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore MD, 21205, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRegulatory decision-making involves assessment of risks and benefits of medications at the time of approval or when relevant safety concerns arise with a medication. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) facilitates decision-making in complex situations involving tradeoffs by considering risks and benefits of alternatives. The AHP allows a more structured method of synthesizing and understanding evidence in the context of importance assigned to outcomes. Our objective is to evaluate the use of an AHP in a simulated committee setting selecting oral medications for type 2 diabetes.

methodsThis study protocol describes the AHP in five sequential steps using a small group of diabetes experts representing various clinical disciplines. The first step will involve defining the goal of the decision and developing the AHP model. In the next step, we will collect information about how well alternatives are expected to fulfill the decision criteria. In the third step, we will compare the ability of the alternatives to fulfill the criteria and judge the importance of eight criteria relative to the decision goal of the optimal medication choice for type 2 diabetes. We will use pairwise comparisons to sequentially compare the pairs of alternative options regarding their ability to fulfill the criteria. In the fourth step, the scales created in the third step will be combined to create a summary score indicating how well the alternatives met the decision goal. The resulting scores will be expressed as percentages and will indicate the alternative medications' relative abilities to fulfill the decision goal. The fifth step will consist of sensitivity analyses to explore the effects of changing the estimates. We will also conduct a cognitive interview and process evaluation. DISCUSSION: Multi-criteria decision analysis using the AHP will aid, support and enhance the ability of decision makers to make evidence-based informed decisions consistent with their values and preferences.

Identifiers

PMID24555077
PMCPMC3886795

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.