↓ Skip to main content

Weighing Clinical Evidence Using Patient Preferences: An Application of Probabilistic Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
Title
Weighing Clinical Evidence Using Patient Preferences: An Application of Probabilistic Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40273-016-0467-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henk Broekhuizen, Maarten J. IJzerman, A. Brett Hauber, Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn

Abstract

The need for patient engagement has been recognized by regulatory agencies, but there is no consensus about how to operationalize this. One approach is the formal elicitation and use of patient preferences for weighing clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to demonstrate how patient preferences can be used to weigh clinical outcomes when both preferences and clinical outcomes are uncertain by applying a probabilistic value-based multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method. Probability distributions were used to model random variation and parameter uncertainty in preferences, and parameter uncertainty in clinical outcomes. The posterior value distributions and rank probabilities for each treatment were obtained using Monte-Carlo simulations. The probability of achieving the first rank is the probability that a treatment represents the highest value to patients. We illustrated our methodology for a simplified case on six HIV treatments. Preferences were modeled with normal distributions and clinical outcomes were modeled with beta distributions. The treatment value distributions showed the rank order of treatments according to patients and illustrate the remaining decision uncertainty. This study demonstrated how patient preference data can be used to weigh clinical evidence using MCDA. The model takes into account uncertainty in preferences and clinical outcomes. The model can support decision makers during the aggregation step of the MCDA process and provides a first step toward preference-based personalized medicine, yet requires further testing regarding its appropriate use in real-world settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 72 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 26 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 22%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 30 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 March 2017.
All research outputs
#1,497,420
of 23,305,591 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#76
of 1,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,780
of 314,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#1
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,305,591 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,874 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,171 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.