Skip to main content
Top
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 4/2014

01-04-2014 | Review Article

Assessing the Value of Healthcare Interventions Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: A Review of the Literature

Authors: Kevin Marsh, Tereza Lanitis, David Neasham, Panagiotis Orfanos, Jaime Caro

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 4/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

The objective of this study is to support those undertaking a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) by reviewing the approaches adopted in healthcare MCDAs to date, how these varied with the objective of the study, and the lessons learned from this experience. Searches of EMBASE and MEDLINE identified 40 studies that provided 41 examples of MCDA in healthcare. Data were extracted on the objective of the study, methods employed, and decision makers’ and study authors’ reflections on the advantages and disadvantages of the methods. The recent interest in MCDA in healthcare is mirrored in an increase in the application of MCDA to evaluate healthcare interventions. Of the studies identified, the first was published in 1990, but more than half were published since 2011. They were undertaken in 18 different countries, and were designed to support investment (coverage and reimbursement), authorization, prescription, and research funding allocation decisions. Many intervention types were assessed: pharmaceuticals, public health interventions, screening, surgical interventions, and devices. Most used the value measurement approach and scored performance using predefined scales. Beyond these similarities, a diversity of different approaches were adopted, with only limited correspondence between the approach and the type of decision or product. Decision makers consulted as part of these studies, as well as the authors of the studies are positive about the potential of MCDA to improve decision making. Further work is required, however, to develop guidance for those undertaking MCDA.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
2
The asterisk refers to any ending to the search term being acceptable.
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Guo JJ, Pandey S, Doyle J, Bian B, Lis Y, Raisch DW. A review of quantitative risk-benefit methodologies for assessing drug safety and efficacy: report of the ISPOR risk-benefit management working group. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;13(5):657–66.CrossRef Guo JJ, Pandey S, Doyle J, Bian B, Lis Y, Raisch DW. A review of quantitative risk-benefit methodologies for assessing drug safety and efficacy: report of the ISPOR risk-benefit management working group. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;13(5):657–66.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Garrison LP. Regulatory benefit-risk assessment and comparative effectiveness research: strangers, bedfellows or strange bedfellows? Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):855–65.PubMedCrossRef Garrison LP. Regulatory benefit-risk assessment and comparative effectiveness research: strangers, bedfellows or strange bedfellows? Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):855–65.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference The future of drug safety: promoting and protecting the health of the public. Institute of Medicine, 2006. The future of drug safety: promoting and protecting the health of the public. Institute of Medicine, 2006.
5.
go back to reference European Medicines Agency (EMA). Report of the CHMP working group on benefit-risk assessment models and methods; 2007. European Medicines Agency (EMA). Report of the CHMP working group on benefit-risk assessment models and methods; 2007.
6.
go back to reference European Medicines Agency (EMA). Benefit-risk methodology project. Work package 4 report: benefit-risk tools and processes; 2012. European Medicines Agency (EMA). Benefit-risk methodology project. Work package 4 report: benefit-risk tools and processes; 2012.
7.
8.
go back to reference Golan O, Hansen P, Kaplan G, Tal O. Health technology prioritization: which criteria for prioritizing new technologies and what are their relative weights? Health Policy. 2011;102(2–3):126–35.PubMedCrossRef Golan O, Hansen P, Kaplan G, Tal O. Health technology prioritization: which criteria for prioritizing new technologies and what are their relative weights? Health Policy. 2011;102(2–3):126–35.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Tony M, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Papastavros T, Oh P, et al. Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multicriteria decision analyses (MCDA): field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:329.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Tony M, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Papastavros T, Oh P, et al. Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multicriteria decision analyses (MCDA): field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:329.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2012;15(8):1172–81.CrossRef Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2012;15(8):1172–81.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Cross JT, Garrison LP. Challenges and opportunities for improving benefit-risk assessment of pharmaceuticals from an economic perspective. London: Office of Health Economics; 2008. Cross JT, Garrison LP. Challenges and opportunities for improving benefit-risk assessment of pharmaceuticals from an economic perspective. London: Office of Health Economics; 2008.
16.
go back to reference Communities and Local Government (CLG). Multi-criteria analysis: a manual; 2009. Communities and Local Government (CLG). Multi-criteria analysis: a manual; 2009.
17.
go back to reference Institute of Medicine. Ranking vaccines a prioritization framework phase I: demonstration of concept and a software blueprint. In: National Academy of Sciences, editor. Washington DC: National Academies Press; 2012. Institute of Medicine. Ranking vaccines a prioritization framework phase I: demonstration of concept and a software blueprint. In: National Academy of Sciences, editor. Washington DC: National Academies Press; 2012.
18.
go back to reference Drummond M, Bridges JFP, Muhlbacher A, Ijzerman MJ. Identification, weighting and prioritization of multiple endpoints for comparative effectiveness research: what have we learned from Germany? ISPOR Panel 2011; 2011. Drummond M, Bridges JFP, Muhlbacher A, Ijzerman MJ. Identification, weighting and prioritization of multiple endpoints for comparative effectiveness research: what have we learned from Germany? ISPOR Panel 2011; 2011.
21.
go back to reference Sussex J, Towse A, Devlin N. Operationalizing value-based pricing of medicines: a taxonomy of approaches. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(1):1–10.PubMedCrossRef Sussex J, Towse A, Devlin N. Operationalizing value-based pricing of medicines: a taxonomy of approaches. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(1):1–10.PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference De Montis A, De Toro P, Droste-Franke B, et al. Criteria for quality assessment of MCDA methods. In: Getzener M, Spash C, Stagl S, editors. Alternatives for valuing nature: London: Routledge; 2005: 99–133. De Montis A, De Toro P, Droste-Franke B, et al. Criteria for quality assessment of MCDA methods. In: Getzener M, Spash C, Stagl S, editors. Alternatives for valuing nature: London: Routledge; 2005: 99–133.
23.
go back to reference Broekhuizen H, Ijzerman MJ, Groothuis-Oudshoorn KG, Hauber AB. Integrating patient preferences and clinical trial data in a Bayesian model for quantitative risk-benefit assessment. Value Health. 2012;15(7):A474.CrossRef Broekhuizen H, Ijzerman MJ, Groothuis-Oudshoorn KG, Hauber AB. Integrating patient preferences and clinical trial data in a Bayesian model for quantitative risk-benefit assessment. Value Health. 2012;15(7):A474.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Jehu-Appiah C, Baltussen R, Acquah C, Aikins M, d’Almeida SA, Bosu WK, et al. Balancing equity and efficiency in health priorities in Ghana: the use of multicriteria decision analysis. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008;11(7):1081–7.CrossRef Jehu-Appiah C, Baltussen R, Acquah C, Aikins M, d’Almeida SA, Bosu WK, et al. Balancing equity and efficiency in health priorities in Ghana: the use of multicriteria decision analysis. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008;11(7):1081–7.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Dolan JG. Patient priorities in colorectal cancer screening decisions. Health Expect Int J Public Particip Health Care Health Policy. 2005;8(4):334–44. Dolan JG. Patient priorities in colorectal cancer screening decisions. Health Expect Int J Public Particip Health Care Health Policy. 2005;8(4):334–44.
26.
go back to reference Dolan JG, Frisina S. Randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening. Med Decis Mak. 2002;22(2):125–39.CrossRef Dolan JG, Frisina S. Randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening. Med Decis Mak. 2002;22(2):125–39.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Diaby V, Campbell K, Goeree R. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in health care: a bibliometric analysis. Oper Res Health Care. 2013;2:20–4.CrossRef Diaby V, Campbell K, Goeree R. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in health care: a bibliometric analysis. Oper Res Health Care. 2013;2:20–4.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Brass EP, Lofstedt R, Renn O. A decision-analysis tool for benefit-risk assessment of nonprescription drugs. J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;53(5):475–82.PubMedCrossRef Brass EP, Lofstedt R, Renn O. A decision-analysis tool for benefit-risk assessment of nonprescription drugs. J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;53(5):475–82.PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Felli JC, Noel RA, Cavazzoni PA. A multiattribute model for evaluating the benefit-risk profiles of treatment alternatives. Med Decis Mak. 2009;29(1):104–15.CrossRef Felli JC, Noel RA, Cavazzoni PA. A multiattribute model for evaluating the benefit-risk profiles of treatment alternatives. Med Decis Mak. 2009;29(1):104–15.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Marsh K, Dolan P, Kempster J, Lugon M. Prioritizing investments in public health: a multi-criteria decision analysis. J Public Health (Oxf). 2012 Marsh K, Dolan P, Kempster J, Lugon M. Prioritizing investments in public health: a multi-criteria decision analysis. J Public Health (Oxf). 2012
31.
go back to reference Youngkong S, Baltussen R, Tantivess S, Mohara A, Teerawattananon Y. Multicriteria decision analysis for including health interventions in the universal health coverage benefit package in Thailand. Value Health. 2012;15(6):961–70.PubMedCrossRef Youngkong S, Baltussen R, Tantivess S, Mohara A, Teerawattananon Y. Multicriteria decision analysis for including health interventions in the universal health coverage benefit package in Thailand. Value Health. 2012;15(6):961–70.PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Wilson E, Sussex J, Macleod C, Fordham R. Prioritizing health technologies in a Primary Care Trust. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12(2):80–5.PubMedCrossRef Wilson E, Sussex J, Macleod C, Fordham R. Prioritizing health technologies in a Primary Care Trust. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12(2):80–5.PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference van Til JA, Renzenbrink GJ, Dolan JG, Ijzerman MJ. The use of the analytic hierarchy process to aid decision making in acquired equinovarus deformity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(3):457–62.PubMedCrossRef van Til JA, Renzenbrink GJ, Dolan JG, Ijzerman MJ. The use of the analytic hierarchy process to aid decision making in acquired equinovarus deformity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(3):457–62.PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Erjaee A, Bagherpour M, Razeghi S, Dehghani SM, Imanieh MH, Haghighat M. A multi-criteria decision making model for treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection in children. Hong Kong J Paediatr. 2012;17(4):237–42. Erjaee A, Bagherpour M, Razeghi S, Dehghani SM, Imanieh MH, Haghighat M. A multi-criteria decision making model for treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection in children. Hong Kong J Paediatr. 2012;17(4):237–42.
35.
go back to reference Diaz-Ledezma C, Parvizi J. Surgical approaches for cam femoroacetabular impingement: the use of multicriteria decision analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:2509–16.PubMedCrossRef Diaz-Ledezma C, Parvizi J. Surgical approaches for cam femoroacetabular impingement: the use of multicriteria decision analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:2509–16.PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(2):376–88.CrossRef Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(2):376–88.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Baltussena R, Stolka E, Chisholmc D, Aikinsd M. Towards a multi-criteria approach for priority setting: an application to Ghana. Health Econ. 2006;15:689–96.CrossRef Baltussena R, Stolka E, Chisholmc D, Aikinsd M. Towards a multi-criteria approach for priority setting: an application to Ghana. Health Econ. 2006;15:689–96.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, et al. Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: applying the EVIDEM decision making framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2010;8. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, et al. Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: applying the EVIDEM decision making framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2010;8.
39.
go back to reference Hummel MJM, Volz F, Van Manen JG, Danner M, Dintsios CM, Ijzerman MJ, et al. Using the analytic hierarchy process to elicit patient preferences: prioritizing multiple outcome measures of antidepressant drug treatment. Patient. 2012;5(4):225–37.PubMedCrossRef Hummel MJM, Volz F, Van Manen JG, Danner M, Dintsios CM, Ijzerman MJ, et al. Using the analytic hierarchy process to elicit patient preferences: prioritizing multiple outcome measures of antidepressant drug treatment. Patient. 2012;5(4):225–37.PubMedCrossRef
40.
go back to reference Airoldi M, Morton A, Smith J, Bevan G. Healthcare prioritisation at the local level: a socio-technical approach. Priority Setting for Population Health; Working paper series; London School of Economics and Political Science. 2011; Working paper no.7. Airoldi M, Morton A, Smith J, Bevan G. Healthcare prioritisation at the local level: a socio-technical approach. Priority Setting for Population Health; Working paper series; London School of Economics and Political Science. 2011; Working paper no.7.
41.
go back to reference Diaby V, Lachaine J. An application of a proposed framework for formulary listing in low-income countries: the case of Cote d’Ivoire. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(6):389–402.PubMedCrossRef Diaby V, Lachaine J. An application of a proposed framework for formulary listing in low-income countries: the case of Cote d’Ivoire. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(6):389–402.PubMedCrossRef
42.
go back to reference Baltussen R, Ten Asbroek AHA, Koolman X, Shrestha N, Bhattarai P, Niessen LW. Priority setting using multiple criteria: should a lung health programme be implemented in Nepal? Health Policy Plan. 2007;22(3):178–85.PubMedCrossRef Baltussen R, Ten Asbroek AHA, Koolman X, Shrestha N, Bhattarai P, Niessen LW. Priority setting using multiple criteria: should a lung health programme be implemented in Nepal? Health Policy Plan. 2007;22(3):178–85.PubMedCrossRef
43.
go back to reference Hummel JM, Boomkamp ISM, Steuten LMG, Verkerke BGJ, Ijzerman MJ. Predicting the health economic performance of new non-fusion surgery in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Orthop Res. 2012;30(9):1453–8.PubMedCrossRef Hummel JM, Boomkamp ISM, Steuten LMG, Verkerke BGJ, Ijzerman MJ. Predicting the health economic performance of new non-fusion surgery in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Orthop Res. 2012;30(9):1453–8.PubMedCrossRef
44.
go back to reference Kroese M, Burton H, Whittaker J, Lakshman R, Alberg C. A framework for the prioritization of investment in the provision of genetic tests. Public Health Genomics. 2010;13(7–8):538–43.PubMedCrossRef Kroese M, Burton H, Whittaker J, Lakshman R, Alberg C. A framework for the prioritization of investment in the provision of genetic tests. Public Health Genomics. 2010;13(7–8):538–43.PubMedCrossRef
45.
go back to reference Van Valkenhoef G, Tervonen T, Zhao J, De Brock B, Hillege HL, Postmus D. Multicriteria benefit-risk assessment using network meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(4):394–403.PubMedCrossRef Van Valkenhoef G, Tervonen T, Zhao J, De Brock B, Hillege HL, Postmus D. Multicriteria benefit-risk assessment using network meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(4):394–403.PubMedCrossRef
46.
47.
go back to reference Cunich M, Salkeld G, Dowie J, Henderson J, Bayram C, Britt H, et al. Integrating evidence and individual preferences using a web-based multi-criteria decision analytic tool: an application to prostate cancer screening. Patient. 2011;4(3):153–62.PubMedCrossRef Cunich M, Salkeld G, Dowie J, Henderson J, Bayram C, Britt H, et al. Integrating evidence and individual preferences using a web-based multi-criteria decision analytic tool: an application to prostate cancer screening. Patient. 2011;4(3):153–62.PubMedCrossRef
48.
go back to reference Dolan JG, Bordley DR. Isoniazid prophylaxis: the importance of individual values. Med Decis Mak. 1994;14(1):1–8.CrossRef Dolan JG, Bordley DR. Isoniazid prophylaxis: the importance of individual values. Med Decis Mak. 1994;14(1):1–8.CrossRef
49.
go back to reference Youngkong S, Teerawattananon Y, Tantivess S, Baltussen R. Multi-criteria decision analysis for setting priorities on HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand. Health Res Policy Syst BioMed Cent. 2012;10:6.CrossRef Youngkong S, Teerawattananon Y, Tantivess S, Baltussen R. Multi-criteria decision analysis for setting priorities on HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand. Health Res Policy Syst BioMed Cent. 2012;10:6.CrossRef
50.
go back to reference Miot J, Wagner M, Khoury H, et al. Field testing of a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for coverage of a screening test for cervical cancer in South Africa. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012;10. Miot J, Wagner M, Khoury H, et al. Field testing of a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for coverage of a screening test for cervical cancer in South Africa. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012;10.
51.
go back to reference Le Gales C, Moatti JP. Searching for consensus through multi-criteria decision analysis: assessment of screening strategies for hemoglobinopathies in southeastern France. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1990;6(3):430–49.PubMedCrossRef Le Gales C, Moatti JP. Searching for consensus through multi-criteria decision analysis: assessment of screening strategies for hemoglobinopathies in southeastern France. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1990;6(3):430–49.PubMedCrossRef
52.
go back to reference Guest J, Harrop JS, Aarabi B, Grossman RG, Fawcett JW, Fehlings MG, et al. Optimization of the decision-making process for the selection of therapeutics to undergo clinical testing for spinal cord injury in the North American Clinical Trials Network. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17(1 Suppl):94–101.PubMed Guest J, Harrop JS, Aarabi B, Grossman RG, Fawcett JW, Fehlings MG, et al. Optimization of the decision-making process for the selection of therapeutics to undergo clinical testing for spinal cord injury in the North American Clinical Trials Network. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17(1 Suppl):94–101.PubMed
53.
go back to reference Van Wijk BL, Klungel OH, Heerdink ER, de Boer A. A comparison of two multiple-characteristic decision-making models for the comparison of antihypertensive drug classes: simple additive weighting (SAW) and technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution (TOPSIS). Am J Cardiovasc Drugs Drugs Devices Interv. 2006;6(4):251–8.CrossRef Van Wijk BL, Klungel OH, Heerdink ER, de Boer A. A comparison of two multiple-characteristic decision-making models for the comparison of antihypertensive drug classes: simple additive weighting (SAW) and technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution (TOPSIS). Am J Cardiovasc Drugs Drugs Devices Interv. 2006;6(4):251–8.CrossRef
54.
go back to reference Lootsma FA. The French and the American school in multi-criteria decision analysis. Revue française d’automatique, d’informatique et de recherche opérationnelle Recherche opérationnelle. 1990;24(3):263–85. Lootsma FA. The French and the American school in multi-criteria decision analysis. Revue française d’automatique, d’informatique et de recherche opérationnelle Recherche opérationnelle. 1990;24(3):263–85.
55.
go back to reference Baeten SA, Baltussen RMPM, Uyl-de Groot CA, Bridges J, Louis WN. Incorporating equity-efficiency interactions in cost-effectiveness analysis: three approaches applied to breast cancer control. Value Health. 2010;13(5):573–9.PubMedCrossRef Baeten SA, Baltussen RMPM, Uyl-de Groot CA, Bridges J, Louis WN. Incorporating equity-efficiency interactions in cost-effectiveness analysis: three approaches applied to breast cancer control. Value Health. 2010;13(5):573–9.PubMedCrossRef
56.
go back to reference Dalalah D, Magableh S. A remote fuzzy multicriteria diagnosis of sore throat. Telemed e-Health. 2008;14(7):656–65.CrossRef Dalalah D, Magableh S. A remote fuzzy multicriteria diagnosis of sore throat. Telemed e-Health. 2008;14(7):656–65.CrossRef
57.
go back to reference Defechereux T, Paolucci F, Mirelman A, Youngkong S, Botten G, Hagen TP, et al. Health care priority setting in Norway: a multicriteria decision analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:39.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Defechereux T, Paolucci F, Mirelman A, Youngkong S, Botten G, Hagen TP, et al. Health care priority setting in Norway: a multicriteria decision analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:39.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
58.
go back to reference Gonza lez-Zapata LI, Alvarez-Dardet C, Ortiz-Moncada R, et al. Policy options for obesity in Europe: a comparison of public health specialists with other stakeholders. Public Health Nutr. 2009;12(7):896–908. Gonza lez-Zapata LI, Alvarez-Dardet C, Ortiz-Moncada R, et al. Policy options for obesity in Europe: a comparison of public health specialists with other stakeholders. Public Health Nutr. 2009;12(7):896–908.
59.
go back to reference Holdsworth M, El Ati J, Bour A, et al. Developing national obesity policy in middle-income countries: a case study from North Africa. Health Policy Plann. 2012;1–13. Holdsworth M, El Ati J, Bour A, et al. Developing national obesity policy in middle-income countries: a case study from North Africa. Health Policy Plann. 2012;1–13.
60.
go back to reference Marjanhummel JM, Snoek GJ, van Til JA, van Rossum W, IJzerman MJ. A multicriteria decision analysis of augmentative treatment of upper limbs in persons with tetraplegia. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42(5):635–44.CrossRef Marjanhummel JM, Snoek GJ, van Til JA, van Rossum W, IJzerman MJ. A multicriteria decision analysis of augmentative treatment of upper limbs in persons with tetraplegia. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42(5):635–44.CrossRef
61.
go back to reference Nobre FF, Trotta LTF, Gomes LFAM. Multi-criteria decision making: an approach to setting priorities in health care. Stat Med. 1999;18(23):3345–54.PubMedCrossRef Nobre FF, Trotta LTF, Gomes LFAM. Multi-criteria decision making: an approach to setting priorities in health care. Stat Med. 1999;18(23):3345–54.PubMedCrossRef
62.
go back to reference Pérez Encinas M, Fernández MA, Martín ML, et al. Multicriteria decision analysis for determining drug therapy for intermittent claudication. Meth Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 1998;20(5):425–431. Pérez Encinas M, Fernández MA, Martín ML, et al. Multicriteria decision analysis for determining drug therapy for intermittent claudication. Meth Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 1998;20(5):425–431.
63.
Metadata
Title
Assessing the Value of Healthcare Interventions Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: A Review of the Literature
Authors
Kevin Marsh
Tereza Lanitis
David Neasham
Panagiotis Orfanos
Jaime Caro
Publication date
01-04-2014
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 4/2014
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0135-0

Other articles of this Issue 4/2014

PharmacoEconomics 4/2014 Go to the issue