Group Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Benefit-Risk Assessment: A Tutorial

Hummel, J. Marjan; Bridges, John F.P.; IJzerman, Maarten J.

doi:10.1007/s40271-014-0050-7

Cited by 84 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We briefly describe the strengths and limitations of MCDA approaches that appeared in at least 2 of the 3 reviews of MCDA for group decision making . Multiattribute value theory (MAVT), DCE/conjoint analysis, and AHP were judged based on considerations of scoring performance of tests (in presence of weak evidence base), and judging weights of BRC and building consensus.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another practical consideration may be choosing a method with a wide offering of software packages. There are many software solutions that accommodate the diversity of MAVT approaches and markedly fewer variations of the AHP or DCE approaches . However, AHP is commonly used for consensus building; thus, software packages that facilitate group decision making are more widely available for AHP .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A proposed approach for quantitative benefit‐risk assessment in diagnostic radiology guideline development: the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria Example

Agapova

Bresnahan

Higashi

et al. 2016

Evaluation Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The American College of Radiology develops evidence-based practice guidelines to aid appropriate utilization of radiological procedures. Panel members use expert opinion to weight trade-offs and consensus methods to rate appropriateness of imaging tests. These ratings include an equivocal range, assigned when there is disagreement about a technology's appropriateness and the evidence base is weak or for special circumstances. It is not clear how expert consensus merges with the evidence base to arrive at an equivocal rating. Quantitative benefit-risk assessment (QBRA) methods may assist decision makers in this capacity. However, many methods exist and it is not clear which methods are best suited for this application. We perform a critical appraisal of QBRA methods and propose several steps that may aid in making transparent areas of weak evidence and barriers to consensus in guideline development. We identify QBRA methods with potential to facilitate decision making in guideline development and build a decision aid for selecting among these methods. This study identified 2 families of QBRA methods suited to guideline development when expert opinion is expected to contribute substantially to decision making. Key steps to deciding among QBRA methods involve identifying specific benefit-risk criteria and developing a state-of-evidence matrix. For equivocal ratings assigned for reasons other than disagreement or weak evidence base, QBRA may not be needed.In the presence of disagreement but the absence of a weak evidence base, multicriteria decision analysis approaches are recommended; and in the presence of weak evidence base and the absence of disagreement, incremental net health benefit alone or combined with multicriteria decision analysis is recommended. Our critical appraisal further extends investigation of the strengths and limitations of select QBRA methods in facilitating diagnostic radiology clinical guideline development. The process of using the decision aid exposes and makes transparent areas of weak evidence and barriers to consensus.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A proposed approach for quantitative benefit‐risk assessment in diagnostic radiology guideline development: the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria Example

Agapova

Bresnahan

Higashi

et al. 2016

Evaluation Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These methods assist in the comparison between scenarios because they deal with issues of weighting and normalizing individual results. This comes from the need to synthetize the results of the assessment to facilitate comparisons and communication to stakeholders/decision makers [88].…”

Section: Methods To Prioritizementioning

confidence: 99%

A Holistic Sustainability Framework for Waste Management in European Cities: Concept Development

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Waste management represents a challenge for public authorities due to many reasons such as increased waste generation following urban population growth, economic burdens imposed on the municipal budget, and nuisances inevitably caused to the environment and local inhabitants. To optimize the system from a sustainability perspective, moving the transition towards a more circular economy, a better understanding of the different stages of waste management is necessary. A review of recently developed sustainability frameworks for waste management showed that no single framework captures all the instruments needed to ultimately provide a solid basis for comprehensive analyses of the potential burdens associated with urban waste management. Bearing this limitation in mind, the objective of this research is to propose a conceptual and comprehensive sustainability framework to support decision-making in waste management of European cities. The framework comprises a combination of methods capable of identifying future strategies and scenarios, to assess different types of impacts based on a life cycle perspective, and considers the value of waste streams, the actors involved, and possible constraints of implementing scenarios. The social, economic, environmental, technical and political domains are covered, and special attention is paid to impacts affecting foremost the local population.

show abstract

“…It is worth noting that it is always possible to take a step back in the process and repeat a step with evidence gathered later in the process. Adapted from Thokala and Duenas 42 and Hummel et al 43 Examples with regard to organs-on-chips are provided for the first step, to give an indication. example, by asking questions such as, ''Does this model need to be organ or tissue specific?''…”

Section: Maximizing Impact Of Organs-on-chips In Drug Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…42, 43 We will not go further into the details of how to carry out an MCDA in this review, and the reader is recommended to read the following contributions for framework and setup of the MCDA process. 40,[42][43][44] When performing early HTA, it is also important to include all relevant stakeholder groups so that they can provide input on key aspects of the MCDA such as identification of the criteria and the alternatives to prioritize. If not all stakeholders are included or if there is a failure to communicate between all stakeholders, then this could lead to errors in the description of the problem or the deliberation.…”

Section: Early Health Technology Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organs-on-Chips in Drug Development: The Importance of Involving Stakeholders in Early Health Technology Assessment

Middelkamp¹,

Meer

Hummel³

et al. 2016

Applied In Vitro Toxicology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organs-on-chips are three-dimensional, microfluidic cell culture systems that simulate the function of tissues and organ subunits. Organ-on-chip systems are expected to contribute to drug candidate screening and the reduction of animal tests in preclinical drug development and may increase efficiency of these processes. To maximize the future impact of the technology on drug development, it is important to make informed decisions regarding the attributes and features of organs-on-chips even though the technology is still in a stage of early development. It is likely that different stakeholders in organ-on-chip development, such as engineers, biologists, regulatory scientists, and pharmaceutical researchers, will have different perspectives on how to maximize the future impact of the technology. Various aspects of organ-on-chip development, such as cost, materials, features, cell source, read-out technology, types of data, and compatibility with existing technology, will likely be judged differently by different stakeholders. Early health technology assessment (HTA) is needed in order to facilitate the essential integration of such potentially conflicting views in the process of technology development. In this critical review we discuss the potential impact of organs-on-chips on the drug development process, and we use a pilot study to give examples of how different stakeholders have different perspectives on attributes of organ-on-chip technology. As a future tool in early HTA of organs-on-chips, we suggest the use of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA), which is a formal method to deal with multiple and conflicting criteria in technology development. We argue that it is essential to design and perform a comprehensive MCDA for organ-on-chip development, and so the future impact of this technology in the pharmaceutical industry can be maximized.

show abstract

Group Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Benefit-Risk Assessment: A Tutorial

Cited by 84 publications

References 45 publications

A proposed approach for quantitative benefit‐risk assessment in diagnostic radiology guideline development: the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria Example

A proposed approach for quantitative benefit‐risk assessment in diagnostic radiology guideline development: the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria Example

A Holistic Sustainability Framework for Waste Management in European Cities: Concept Development

Organs-on-Chips in Drug Development: The Importance of Involving Stakeholders in Early Health Technology Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About