ArticleThe patient2016
How Well Can Analytic Hierarchy Process be Used to Elicit Individual Preferences? Insights from a Survey in Patients Suffering from Age-Related Macular Degeneration.
Article in The patient, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019Pooled it
- US Retina Specialists' Preferences for Geographic Atrophy Treatment.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- US Patients' Preferences for Geographic Atrophy Treatment.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Do They Align? Congruence Between Patient Preferences of People Living with Cognitive Impairments and Physicians' Judgements for Person-Centered Care: An Analytic Hierarchy Process Study.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2023Article
- Development of a Quantitative Preference Instrument for Person-Centered Dementia Care-Stage 2: Insights from a Formative Qualitative Study to Design and Pretest a Dementia-Friendly Analytic Hierarchy Process Survey.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Development of a Quantitative Instrument to Elicit Patient Preferences for Person-Centered Dementia Care Stage 1: A Formative Qualitative Study to Identify Patient Relevant Criteria for Experimental Design of an Analytic Hierarchy Process.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Methods to Assess Patient Preferences in Old Age Pharmacotherapy - A Systematic Review.Patient preference and adherence · 2020Review
- Assessing the Importance of Treatment Goals in Patients with Psoriasis: Analytic Hierarchy Process vs. Likert Scales.The patient · 2018Article
- Combining and Using the Utrecht Method and the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Facilitate Professional and Ethical Deliberation and Decision Making in Complementary and Alternative Medicine: A Case Study among a Panel of Stakeholders.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2018Article
- Shaping an Effective Health Information Website on Rare Diseases Using a Group Decision-Making Tool: Inclusion of the Perspectives of Patients, Their Family Members, and Physicians.Interactive journal of medical research · 2017Article
- Working toward Personalized Intervention Advice: A Survey Study on Preference Heterogeneity in Patients with Breast Cancer-Related Fatigue.MDM policy & practiceArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this study, we tested the feasibility of an interviewer-assisted analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in a special patient population with age-related macular degeneration (AMD).
objectivesOne aim was to generate preference weights regarding AMD treatment characteristics. A secondary aim was to explore the consistency of preference judgments and reasons for inconsistency.
methodsWe generated quantitative importance weights for decision criteria using the matrix multiplication method. A qualitative study component in the form of asking patients to think aloud throughout their judgments was implemented to facilitate understanding of quantitative findings. Consistency ratios were calculated as a measure of logical judgment performance within AHP. If consistency ratios exceeded 0.2, we explored reasons for inconsistency.
resultsWe interviewed 86 patients and generated preference weights for criteria. Patients rated the injection's effect on visual function the highest (0.44), followed by the frequency of monitoring visits (0.18), approval status (0.13), injection frequency (0.13), and side effects (0.12). Inconsistency in judgments was prevalent at the subcriteria level. Whereas much of the observed inconsistency was due to an excessive use of high/extreme value judgments, these judgments seemed to result from patients reasonably trying to highlight their strong preferences.
conclusionOur study combines quantitative with qualitative data to explore patients' preference weights and decision processes using the AHP. It suggests that the type of inconsistency observed in judgments of AMD patients mostly results from rational decision making, not from error or lack of understanding. Further research should address which type and extent of inconsistency might be acceptable in different AHP settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.