Skip to main content
Top
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 5/2015

Open Access 01-05-2015 | Review Article

A Review and Classification of Approaches for Dealing with Uncertainty in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Healthcare Decisions

Authors: Henk Broekhuizen, Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Janine A. van Til, J. Marjan Hummel, Maarten J. IJzerman

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 5/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is increasingly used to support decisions in healthcare involving multiple and conflicting criteria. Although uncertainty is usually carefully addressed in health economic evaluations, whether and how the different sources of uncertainty are dealt with and with what methods in MCDA is less known. The objective of this study is to review how uncertainty can be explicitly taken into account in MCDA and to discuss which approach may be appropriate for healthcare decision makers. A literature review was conducted in the Scopus and PubMed databases. Two reviewers independently categorized studies according to research areas, the type of MCDA used, and the approach used to quantify uncertainty. Selected full text articles were read for methodological details. The search strategy identified 569 studies. The five approaches most identified were fuzzy set theory (45 % of studies), probabilistic sensitivity analysis (15 %), deterministic sensitivity analysis (31 %), Bayesian framework (6 %), and grey theory (3 %). A large number of papers considered the analytic hierarchy process in combination with fuzzy set theory (31 %). Only 3 % of studies were published in healthcare-related journals. In conclusion, our review identified five different approaches to take uncertainty into account in MCDA. The deterministic approach is most likely sufficient for most healthcare policy decisions because of its low complexity and straightforward implementation. However, more complex approaches may be needed when multiple sources of uncertainty must be considered simultaneously.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
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
2.
go back to reference Belton V, Stewart TJ. Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.CrossRef Belton V, Stewart TJ. Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Hummel JM, Bridges JFP, IJzerman MJ. Group decision making with the analytic hierarchy process in benefit-risk assessment: a tutorial. Patient. 2014;7:129–40.CrossRefPubMed Hummel JM, Bridges JFP, IJzerman MJ. Group decision making with the analytic hierarchy process in benefit-risk assessment: a tutorial. Patient. 2014;7:129–40.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Holden W. Benefit-risk analysis: a brief review and proposed quantitative approaches. Drug Saf. 2003;26:853–62.CrossRefPubMed Holden W. Benefit-risk analysis: a brief review and proposed quantitative approaches. Drug Saf. 2003;26:853–62.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Mussen F, Salek S, Walker S. A quantitative approach to benefit-risk assessment of medicines—part 1: the development of a new model using multi-criteria decision analysis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16:S2–15.CrossRefPubMed Mussen F, Salek S, Walker S. A quantitative approach to benefit-risk assessment of medicines—part 1: the development of a new model using multi-criteria decision analysis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16:S2–15.CrossRefPubMed
6.
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. 2010;13:657–66.CrossRefPubMed 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. 2010;13:657–66.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Phillips LD, Fasolo B, Zafiropoulos N, Beyer A. Is quantitative benefit–risk modelling of drugs desirable or possible? Drug Discov Today Technol. 2011;8:e3–10.CrossRef Phillips LD, Fasolo B, Zafiropoulos N, Beyer A. Is quantitative benefit–risk modelling of drugs desirable or possible? Drug Discov Today Technol. 2011;8:e3–10.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Levitan BS, Andrews EB, Gilsenan A, Ferguson J, Noel RA, Coplan PM, et al. Application of the BRAT framework to case studies: observations and insights. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;89:217–24.CrossRefPubMed Levitan BS, Andrews EB, Gilsenan A, Ferguson J, Noel RA, Coplan PM, et al. Application of the BRAT framework to case studies: observations and insights. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;89:217–24.CrossRefPubMed
9.
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;65:394–403.CrossRefPubMed 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;65:394–403.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Diaby V, Goeree R. How to use multi-criteria decision analysis methods for reimbursement decision-making in healthcare: a step-by-step guide. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14:81–99.CrossRefPubMed Diaby V, Goeree R. How to use multi-criteria decision analysis methods for reimbursement decision-making in healthcare: a step-by-step guide. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14:81–99.CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
go back to reference Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health. 2012;15:1172–81.CrossRefPubMed Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health. 2012;15:1172–81.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Devlin NJ, Sussex JON. Incorporating multiple criteria in HTA: methods and processes. London: The Office of Health Economics; 2011. Devlin NJ, Sussex JON. Incorporating multiple criteria in HTA: methods and processes. London: The Office of Health Economics; 2011.
14.
go back to reference Bojke L, Claxton K, Sculpher M, Palmer S. Characterizing structural uncertainty in decision analytic models: a review and application of methods. Value Health. 2009;12:739–49.CrossRefPubMed Bojke L, Claxton K, Sculpher M, Palmer S. Characterizing structural uncertainty in decision analytic models: a review and application of methods. Value Health. 2009;12:739–49.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EL, Karnon J, Sculpher MJ, Paltiel AD. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-6. Value Health. 2012;15:835–42.CrossRefPubMed Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EL, Karnon J, Sculpher MJ, Paltiel AD. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-6. Value Health. 2012;15:835–42.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Marsh K, Lanitis T, Neasham D, Orfanos P, Caro J. Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(4):345–65.CrossRefPubMed Marsh K, Lanitis T, Neasham D, Orfanos P, Caro J. Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(4):345–65.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Durbach IN, Stewart TJ. Modeling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis. Eur J Oper Res. 2012;223:1–14.CrossRef Durbach IN, Stewart TJ. Modeling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis. Eur J Oper Res. 2012;223:1–14.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Kangas AS, Kangas J. Probability, possibility and evidence: approaches to consider risk and uncertainty in forestry decision analysis. For Policy Econ. 2004;6:169–88.CrossRef Kangas AS, Kangas J. Probability, possibility and evidence: approaches to consider risk and uncertainty in forestry decision analysis. For Policy Econ. 2004;6:169–88.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Felli J, Hazen GB. Sensitivity analysis and the expected value of perfect information. Med Decis Mak. 1998;18:95–109.CrossRef Felli J, Hazen GB. Sensitivity analysis and the expected value of perfect information. Med Decis Mak. 1998;18:95–109.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Churilov L, Liu D, Ma H, Christensen S, Nagakane Y, Campbell B, et al. Multiattribute selection of acute stroke imaging software platform for extending the time for thrombolysis in emergency neurological deficits (EXTEND) clinical trial. Int J Stroke. 2013;8:204–10.CrossRefPubMed Churilov L, Liu D, Ma H, Christensen S, Nagakane Y, Campbell B, et al. Multiattribute selection of acute stroke imaging software platform for extending the time for thrombolysis in emergency neurological deficits (EXTEND) clinical trial. Int J Stroke. 2013;8:204–10.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Parthiban P, Abdul Zubar H. An integrated multi-objective decision making process for the performance evaluation of the vendors. Int J Prod Res. 2013;51:3836–48.CrossRef Parthiban P, Abdul Zubar H. An integrated multi-objective decision making process for the performance evaluation of the vendors. Int J Prod Res. 2013;51:3836–48.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Hyde KM, Maier HR, Colby CB. A distance-based uncertainty analysis approach to multi-criteria decision analysis for water resource decision making. J Environ Manage. 2005;77:278–90.CrossRefPubMed Hyde KM, Maier HR, Colby CB. A distance-based uncertainty analysis approach to multi-criteria decision analysis for water resource decision making. J Environ Manage. 2005;77:278–90.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Cox R, Sanchez J, Revie CW. Multi-criteria decision analysis tools for prioritising emerging or re-emerging infectious diseases associated with climate change in Canada. PLoS One. 2013;8:e68338.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Cox R, Sanchez J, Revie CW. Multi-criteria decision analysis tools for prioritising emerging or re-emerging infectious diseases associated with climate change in Canada. PLoS One. 2013;8:e68338.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
24.
go back to reference Hopfe CJ, Augenbroe GLM, Hensen JLM. Multi-criteria decision making under uncertainty in building performance assessment. Build Environ. 2013;69:81–90.CrossRef Hopfe CJ, Augenbroe GLM, Hensen JLM. Multi-criteria decision making under uncertainty in building performance assessment. Build Environ. 2013;69:81–90.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Haakma W, Steuten LMG, Bojke L, IJzerman MJ. Belief elicitation to populate health economic models of medical diagnostic devices in development. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014;12:327–34.CrossRefPubMed Haakma W, Steuten LMG, Bojke L, IJzerman MJ. Belief elicitation to populate health economic models of medical diagnostic devices in development. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014;12:327–34.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Betrie GD, Sadiq R, Morin KA, Tesfamariam S. Selection of remedial alternatives for mine sites: a multicriteria decision analysis approach. J Environ Manage. 2013;119:36–46.CrossRefPubMed Betrie GD, Sadiq R, Morin KA, Tesfamariam S. Selection of remedial alternatives for mine sites: a multicriteria decision analysis approach. J Environ Manage. 2013;119:36–46.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Prado-Lopez V, Seager TP, Chester M, Laurin L, Bernardo M, Tylock S. Stochastic multi-attribute analysis (SMAA) as an interpretation method for comparative life-cycle assessment (LCA). Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2013;19:405–16.CrossRef Prado-Lopez V, Seager TP, Chester M, Laurin L, Bernardo M, Tylock S. Stochastic multi-attribute analysis (SMAA) as an interpretation method for comparative life-cycle assessment (LCA). Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2013;19:405–16.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Broekhuizen H, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Hauber AB, IJzerman MJ. Integrating patient preferences and clinical trial data in a Bayesian model for benefit-risk assessment. 34th Annual Meeting of the Society of Medical Decision Making. Phoenix, AZ; 2012. Broekhuizen H, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Hauber AB, IJzerman MJ. Integrating patient preferences and clinical trial data in a Bayesian model for benefit-risk assessment. 34th Annual Meeting of the Society of Medical Decision Making. Phoenix, AZ; 2012.
29.
go back to reference Fenton N, Neil M. Making decisions: using Bayesian nets and MCDA. Knowl Based Syst. 2001;14:307–25.CrossRef Fenton N, Neil M. Making decisions: using Bayesian nets and MCDA. Knowl Based Syst. 2001;14:307–25.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Albert J. Bayesian computation with R. 1st ed. In: Gentleman R, Hornik K, Parmigiani G, editors. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.; 2007. Albert J. Bayesian computation with R. 1st ed. In: Gentleman R, Hornik K, Parmigiani G, editors. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.; 2007.
31.
go back to reference Beynon MJ. The Role of the DS/AHP in identifying inter-group alliances and majority rule within group decision making. Gr Decis Negot. 2005;15:21–42.CrossRef Beynon MJ. The Role of the DS/AHP in identifying inter-group alliances and majority rule within group decision making. Gr Decis Negot. 2005;15:21–42.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Srivastava RP. An introduction to evidential reasoning for decision making under uncertainty: Bayesian and belief function perspectives. Int J Acc Inf Syst. 2011;12:126–35.CrossRef Srivastava RP. An introduction to evidential reasoning for decision making under uncertainty: Bayesian and belief function perspectives. Int J Acc Inf Syst. 2011;12:126–35.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Ma W, Xiong W, Luo X. A model for decision making with missing, imprecise, and uncertain evaluations of multiple criteria. Int J Intell Syst. 2013;28:152–84.CrossRef Ma W, Xiong W, Luo X. A model for decision making with missing, imprecise, and uncertain evaluations of multiple criteria. Int J Intell Syst. 2013;28:152–84.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Beynon M, Curry B, Morgan P. The Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence: an alternative approach to multicriteria decision modelling. Omega. 2000;28:37–50.CrossRef Beynon M, Curry B, Morgan P. The Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence: an alternative approach to multicriteria decision modelling. Omega. 2000;28:37–50.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Chen S-J, Hwang C-L. Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. 1st ed. Berlin: Springer; 1992.CrossRef Chen S-J, Hwang C-L. Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. 1st ed. Berlin: Springer; 1992.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Saaty RW. The analytical hierarchy process: what it is and how it is used. Math Model. 1987;9:161–76.CrossRef Saaty RW. The analytical hierarchy process: what it is and how it is used. Math Model. 1987;9:161–76.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Montazar A, Gheidari ON, Snyder RL. A fuzzy analytical hierarchy methodology for the performance assessment of irrigation projects. Agric Water Manag. 2013;121:113–23.CrossRef Montazar A, Gheidari ON, Snyder RL. A fuzzy analytical hierarchy methodology for the performance assessment of irrigation projects. Agric Water Manag. 2013;121:113–23.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Pitchipoo P, Venkumar P, Rajakarunakaran S. Fuzzy hybrid decision model for supplier evaluation and selection. Int J Prod Res. 2013;51:3903–19.CrossRef Pitchipoo P, Venkumar P, Rajakarunakaran S. Fuzzy hybrid decision model for supplier evaluation and selection. Int J Prod Res. 2013;51:3903–19.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Ju-Long D. Control problems of grey systems. Syst Control Lett. 1982;1:288–94.CrossRef Ju-Long D. Control problems of grey systems. Syst Control Lett. 1982;1:288–94.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Kuang H, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM. Evaluation of source water protection strategies in Waterloo Region based on Grey Systems Theory and PROMETHEE II. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), Seoul, South Korea; 2012. p. 2775–9. Kuang H, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM. Evaluation of source water protection strategies in Waterloo Region based on Grey Systems Theory and PROMETHEE II. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), Seoul, South Korea; 2012. p. 2775–9.
42.
go back to reference Franc M, Frangiosa T. Pharmacogenomic study feasibility assessment and pharmaceutical business decision-making. In: Cohen N, editor. Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine. Methods in Pharmacology and Toxicology. 1st ed. New York: Springer; 2008. p. 253–65. Franc M, Frangiosa T. Pharmacogenomic study feasibility assessment and pharmaceutical business decision-making. In: Cohen N, editor. Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine. Methods in Pharmacology and Toxicology. 1st ed. New York: Springer; 2008. p. 253–65.
43.
go back to reference Bertsch V, Geldermann J. Preference elicitation and sensitivity analysis in multicriteria group decision support for industrial risk and emergency management. Int J Emerg Manag. 2008;5:7–24.CrossRef Bertsch V, Geldermann J. Preference elicitation and sensitivity analysis in multicriteria group decision support for industrial risk and emergency management. Int J Emerg Manag. 2008;5:7–24.CrossRef
44.
go back to reference Bouchard C, Abi-Zeid I, Beauchamp N, Lamontagne L, Desrosiers J, Rodriguez M. Multicriteria decision analysis for the selection of a small drinking water treatment system. J Water Supply Res Technol. 2010;59:230–42.CrossRef Bouchard C, Abi-Zeid I, Beauchamp N, Lamontagne L, Desrosiers J, Rodriguez M. Multicriteria decision analysis for the selection of a small drinking water treatment system. J Water Supply Res Technol. 2010;59:230–42.CrossRef
45.
go back to reference Francisque A, Rodriguez MJ, Sadiq R, Miranda LF, Proulx F. Reconciling, “actual” risk with “perceived” risk for distributed water quality: a QFD-based approach. J Water Supply Res Technol. 2011;60:321–42.CrossRef Francisque A, Rodriguez MJ, Sadiq R, Miranda LF, Proulx F. Reconciling, “actual” risk with “perceived” risk for distributed water quality: a QFD-based approach. J Water Supply Res Technol. 2011;60:321–42.CrossRef
46.
go back to reference Hilgerink MP, Hummel MJ, Manohar S, Vaartjes SR, IJzerman MJ. Assessment of the added value of the Twente Photoacoustic Mammoscope in breast cancer diagnosis. Med Devices (Auckl). 2011;4:107–15.CrossRef Hilgerink MP, Hummel MJ, Manohar S, Vaartjes SR, IJzerman MJ. Assessment of the added value of the Twente Photoacoustic Mammoscope in breast cancer diagnosis. Med Devices (Auckl). 2011;4:107–15.CrossRef
47.
go back to reference Lee CW, Kwak NK. Strategic enterprise resource planning in a health-care system using a multicriteria decision-making model. J Med Syst. 2011;35:265–75.CrossRefPubMed Lee CW, Kwak NK. Strategic enterprise resource planning in a health-care system using a multicriteria decision-making model. J Med Syst. 2011;35:265–75.CrossRefPubMed
48.
go back to reference Richman MB, Forman EH, Bayazit Y, Einstein DB, Resnick MI, Stovsky MD. A novel computer based expert decision making model for prostate cancer disease management. J Urol. 2005;174:2310–8.CrossRefPubMed Richman MB, Forman EH, Bayazit Y, Einstein DB, Resnick MI, Stovsky MD. A novel computer based expert decision making model for prostate cancer disease management. J Urol. 2005;174:2310–8.CrossRefPubMed
49.
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;12:80–5.CrossRefPubMed Wilson E, Sussex J, Macleod C, Fordham R. Prioritizing health technologies in a primary care trust. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12:80–5.CrossRefPubMed
50.
go back to reference Rafiee R, Ataei M, Kamali M. Probabilistic stability analysis of Naien water transporting tunnel and selection of support system using TOPSIS approach. Sci Res Essays. 2011;6:4442–54. Rafiee R, Ataei M, Kamali M. Probabilistic stability analysis of Naien water transporting tunnel and selection of support system using TOPSIS approach. Sci Res Essays. 2011;6:4442–54.
51.
go back to reference Tervonen T, van Valkenhoef G, Buskens E, Hillege HL, Postmus D. A stochastic multicriteria model for evidence-based decision making in drug benefit-risk analysis. Stat Med. 2011;30:1419–28.CrossRefPubMed Tervonen T, van Valkenhoef G, Buskens E, Hillege HL, Postmus D. A stochastic multicriteria model for evidence-based decision making in drug benefit-risk analysis. Stat Med. 2011;30:1419–28.CrossRefPubMed
52.
go back to reference Karimi AR, Mehrdadi N, Hashemian SJ, Nabi Bidhendi GR, Tavakkoli Moghaddam R. Selection of wastewater treatment process based on the analytical hierarchy process and fuzzy analytical hierarchy process methods. Int J Environ Sci Technol. 2011;8:267–80.CrossRef Karimi AR, Mehrdadi N, Hashemian SJ, Nabi Bidhendi GR, Tavakkoli Moghaddam R. Selection of wastewater treatment process based on the analytical hierarchy process and fuzzy analytical hierarchy process methods. Int J Environ Sci Technol. 2011;8:267–80.CrossRef
53.
go back to reference Tesfamariam S, Sadiq R, Najjaran H. Decision making under uncertainty: an example for seismic risk management. Risk Anal. 2010;30:78–94.CrossRefPubMed Tesfamariam S, Sadiq R, Najjaran H. Decision making under uncertainty: an example for seismic risk management. Risk Anal. 2010;30:78–94.CrossRefPubMed
54.
go back to reference Yang AL, Huang GH, Qin XS, Fan YR. Evaluation of remedial options for a benzene-contaminated site through a simulation-based fuzzy-MCDA approach. J Hazard Mater. 2012;213–214:421–33.CrossRefPubMed Yang AL, Huang GH, Qin XS, Fan YR. Evaluation of remedial options for a benzene-contaminated site through a simulation-based fuzzy-MCDA approach. J Hazard Mater. 2012;213–214:421–33.CrossRefPubMed
55.
go back to reference Zhang K, Achari G, Pei Y. Incorporating linguistic, probabilistic, and possibilistic information in a risk-based approach for ranking contaminated sites. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2010;6:711–24.CrossRefPubMed Zhang K, Achari G, Pei Y. Incorporating linguistic, probabilistic, and possibilistic information in a risk-based approach for ranking contaminated sites. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2010;6:711–24.CrossRefPubMed
56.
go back to reference Uzoka FME, Barker K. Expert systems and uncertainty in medical diagnosis: a proposal for fuzzy-ANP hybridisation. Int J Med Eng Inform. 2010;2:329–42.CrossRef Uzoka FME, Barker K. Expert systems and uncertainty in medical diagnosis: a proposal for fuzzy-ANP hybridisation. Int J Med Eng Inform. 2010;2:329–42.CrossRef
57.
go back to reference Castro F, Caccamo LP, Carter KJ, Erickson BA, Johnson W, Kessler E, et al. Sequential test selection in the analysis of abdominal pain. Med Decis Mak. 1996;16:178–83.CrossRef Castro F, Caccamo LP, Carter KJ, Erickson BA, Johnson W, Kessler E, et al. Sequential test selection in the analysis of abdominal pain. Med Decis Mak. 1996;16:178–83.CrossRef
58.
go back to reference Rios Insua D, French S. A framework for sensitivity analysis in discrete multi-objective decision-making. Eur J Oper Res. 1991;54:176–90.CrossRef Rios Insua D, French S. A framework for sensitivity analysis in discrete multi-objective decision-making. Eur J Oper Res. 1991;54:176–90.CrossRef
59.
go back to reference Helton J. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques for use in performance assessment for radioactive waste disposal. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 1993;42:327–67.CrossRef Helton J. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques for use in performance assessment for radioactive waste disposal. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 1993;42:327–67.CrossRef
60.
go back to reference Claxton K. Exploring uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. PharmacoEconomics. 2008;26:781–98.CrossRefPubMed Claxton K. Exploring uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. PharmacoEconomics. 2008;26:781–98.CrossRefPubMed
61.
go back to reference Ribeiro F, Ferreira P, Araújo M. Evaluating future scenarios for the power generation sector using a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool: the Portuguese case. Energy. 2013;52:126–36.CrossRef Ribeiro F, Ferreira P, Araújo M. Evaluating future scenarios for the power generation sector using a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool: the Portuguese case. Energy. 2013;52:126–36.CrossRef
62.
go back to reference Srdjevic Z, Samardzic M, Srdjevic B. Robustness of AHP in selecting wastewater treatment method for the coloured metal industry: Serbian case study. Civ Eng Environ Syst. 2012;29:147–61.CrossRef Srdjevic Z, Samardzic M, Srdjevic B. Robustness of AHP in selecting wastewater treatment method for the coloured metal industry: Serbian case study. Civ Eng Environ Syst. 2012;29:147–61.CrossRef
63.
go back to reference Durbach IN. Outranking under uncertainty using scenarios. Eur J Oper Res. 2014;232:98–108.CrossRef Durbach IN. Outranking under uncertainty using scenarios. Eur J Oper Res. 2014;232:98–108.CrossRef
64.
go back to reference Vahdani B, Mousavi SM, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R, Hashemi H. A new design of the elimination and choice translating reality method for multi-criteria group decision-making in an intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Appl Math Model. 2013;37:1781–99.CrossRef Vahdani B, Mousavi SM, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R, Hashemi H. A new design of the elimination and choice translating reality method for multi-criteria group decision-making in an intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Appl Math Model. 2013;37:1781–99.CrossRef
65.
go back to reference Yang Y. Extended grey numbers and their operations. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2007, Montreal, Quebec; 2007. p. 2181–6. Yang Y. Extended grey numbers and their operations. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2007, Montreal, Quebec; 2007. p. 2181–6.
66.
go back to reference Lahdelma R, Hokkanen J. SMAA-stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis. Eur J Oper Res. 1998;2217:137–43.CrossRef Lahdelma R, Hokkanen J. SMAA-stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis. Eur J Oper Res. 1998;2217:137–43.CrossRef
67.
go back to reference Zavadskas EK, Kaklauskas A. Multi-attribute decision-making model by applying grey numbers. Informatica. 2009;20:305–20. Zavadskas EK, Kaklauskas A. Multi-attribute decision-making model by applying grey numbers. Informatica. 2009;20:305–20.
68.
go back to reference Caro J, Möller J. Decision-analytic models: current methodological challenges. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(10):943–50. Caro J, Möller J. Decision-analytic models: current methodological challenges. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(10):943–50.
69.
go back to reference Tuffaha HW, Gordon LG, Scuffham P. Value of information analysis in health care: a review of principles and applications. J Med Econ. 2014;17(6):377–88.CrossRefPubMed Tuffaha HW, Gordon LG, Scuffham P. Value of information analysis in health care: a review of principles and applications. J Med Econ. 2014;17(6):377–88.CrossRefPubMed
70.
go back to reference Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1978;1:3–28.CrossRef Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1978;1:3–28.CrossRef
71.
go back to reference Keeney R, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1976. Keeney R, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1976.
72.
go back to reference Ishizaka A, Nemery P. Multi-criteria decision analysis: methods and software. 1st ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2013.CrossRef Ishizaka A, Nemery P. Multi-criteria decision analysis: methods and software. 1st ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2013.CrossRef
73.
go back to reference Bilcke J, Beutels P, Brisson M, Jit M. Accounting for methodological, structural, and parameter uncertainty in decision-analytic models: a practical guide. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31:675–92.CrossRef Bilcke J, Beutels P, Brisson M, Jit M. Accounting for methodological, structural, and parameter uncertainty in decision-analytic models: a practical guide. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31:675–92.CrossRef
74.
go back to reference Winterfeldt D. Structuring decision problems for decision analysis. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1980;45:71–93.CrossRef Winterfeldt D. Structuring decision problems for decision analysis. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1980;45:71–93.CrossRef
75.
go back to reference Kahneman D, Tvsersky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:263–91.CrossRef Kahneman D, Tvsersky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:263–91.CrossRef
76.
go back to reference Belton V, Pictet J. A framework for group decision using a MCDA model: sharing, aggregating or comparing individual information? J Decis Syst. 1997;6:283–303.CrossRef Belton V, Pictet J. A framework for group decision using a MCDA model: sharing, aggregating or comparing individual information? J Decis Syst. 1997;6:283–303.CrossRef
77.
go back to reference Liu W. Propositional, probabilistic and evidential reasoning. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag HD; 2001.CrossRef Liu W. Propositional, probabilistic and evidential reasoning. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag HD; 2001.CrossRef
78.
go back to reference Bouyssou D, Marchant T, Pirlot M, Tsoukias A, Vincke P. Evaluation and decision models with multiple criteria: stepping stones for the analyst. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.; 2006. Bouyssou D, Marchant T, Pirlot M, Tsoukias A, Vincke P. Evaluation and decision models with multiple criteria: stepping stones for the analyst. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.; 2006.
79.
go back to reference Winterfeldt D, Edwards W. Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1986. Winterfeldt D, Edwards W. Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1986.
80.
go back to reference Opricovic S. Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Belgrade: Faculty of Civil Engineering; 1998. Opricovic S. Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Belgrade: Faculty of Civil Engineering; 1998.
81.
go back to reference Proctor W, Drechsler M. Deliberative multicriteria evaluation. Environ Plan C Gov Policy. 2006;24:169–90.CrossRef Proctor W, Drechsler M. Deliberative multicriteria evaluation. Environ Plan C Gov Policy. 2006;24:169–90.CrossRef
82.
go back to reference Autran Monteiro Gomes LF, Duncan Rangel LA. An application of the TODIM method to the multicriteria rental evaluation of residential properties. Eur J Oper Res. 2009;193:204–11.CrossRef Autran Monteiro Gomes LF, Duncan Rangel LA. An application of the TODIM method to the multicriteria rental evaluation of residential properties. Eur J Oper Res. 2009;193:204–11.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A Review and Classification of Approaches for Dealing with Uncertainty in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Healthcare Decisions
Authors
Henk Broekhuizen
Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn
Janine A. van Til
J. Marjan Hummel
Maarten J. IJzerman
Publication date
01-05-2015
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 5/2015
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0251-x

Other articles of this Issue 5/2015

PharmacoEconomics 5/2015 Go to the issue