ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2026
Creating A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Tool to Enhance Value-Based Purchasing of Generic and Biosimilar Medications in Saudi Arabia: A Pilot Study.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Saudi Arabia is reforming its healthcare system to promote the use of generic and biosimilar medications to improve spending efficiency. However, concerns regarding therapeutic equivalence persist. This study aims to establish a stakeholder-driven, value-based procurement framework for off-patent pharmaceuticals (OPPs). Methods: The Saudi chapter of the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) convened stakeholders to define procurement criteria. Participants reviewed 29 potential criteria during a workshop, followed by a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) simple scoring exercise and conjoint analysis to determine the relative weight of essential factors. Results: Forty-nine stakeholders participated, primarily pharmacists (57%) and regulators (27%). Sixteen criteria were identified as important: published effectiveness data, drug delivery systems, bioequivalence, real-world data generation, drug stability, direct costs, supply track record, labeled indications, drug safety profile, quality assurance of production, interchangeability, contribution to national healthcare priorities, availability in reference countries, manufacturing site quality certification, pharmaceutical equivalence, and pharmacovigilance. Effectiveness data received the highest weight (11.56%), while pharmacovigilance received the lowest (3.23%). Conclusion: This pilot study establishes the first consensus-based MCDA criteria for Saudi Arabia, prioritizing effectiveness and drug stability over costs. It emphasizes scientific validity over price, serving as a foundation for a national value-based procurement system, though further research is needed to test the framework in healthcare tenders.
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.