Literature DB >> 2179474

Can decision analysis adequately represent clinical problems?

J G Dolan1.   

Abstract

A major weakness of medical decision analysis has been the inability of the commonly used single attribute utility models to adequately represent clinical decision making situations. To illustrate this problem, I reanalyzed a well known decision analysis that is widely interpreted as proof that two decision alternatives are equivalent in all clinically meaningful respects. The reanalysis was based on a more representative decision model made possible by the use of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), a multiobjective decision making technique. The use of this model resulted in the identification of a clearly preferred alternative, indicating that the results of the original analysis have been widely misinterpreted. The degree to which a decision model represents clinical reality influences the correct interpretation of a decision analysis. Limited decision models can yield only limited conclusions. The use of more representative multiobjective decision models would improve the clinical usefulness of medical decision analyses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2179474     DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90008-d

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  9 in total

1.  A comparison of analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis methods in assessing treatment alternatives for stroke rehabilitation.

Authors:  Maarten J Ijzerman; Janine A van Til; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Involving patients in complex decisions about their care: an approach using the analytic hierarchy process.

Authors:  J G Dolan; D R Bordley
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 3.  The need for an iterative process for assessing economic outcomes associated with SSRIs.

Authors:  T L Skaer; D A Sclar; L M Robison; R S Galin
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Patient priorities in colorectal cancer screening decisions.

Authors:  James G Dolan
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  Prioritizing intervention measures to prevent inappropriate self-medication practices using the Analytical Hierarchy Process.

Authors:  Birendra Shrivastava; Omi Bajracharya; Rajani Shakya
Journal:  Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm       Date:  2022-02-26

6.  Diagnostic strategies in the management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: patient and physician preferences.

Authors:  J G Dolan; D R Bordley; H Miller
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Development and preliminary evaluation of a clinical guidance programme for the decision about prophylactic oophorectomy in women undergoing a hysterectomy.

Authors:  I Pell; J Dowie; A Clarke; A Kennedy; V Bhavnani
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2002-03

Review 8.  Concordance between decision analysis and matching systematic review of randomized controlled trials in assessment of treatment comparisons: a systematic review.

Authors:  Rahul S Mhaskar; Hesborn Wao; Helen Mahony; Ambuj Kumar; Benjamin Djulbegovic
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 2.796

9.  The use of multi-criteria decision making models in evaluating anesthesia method options in circumcision surgery.

Authors:  Gulsah Hancerliogullari; Kadir Oymen Hancerliogullari; Emrah Koksalmis
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2017-01-23       Impact factor: 2.796

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.