| Title |
Group Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Benefit-Risk Assessment: A Tutorial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40271-014-0050-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. Marjan Hummel, John F. P. Bridges, Maarten J. IJzerman |
| Abstract |
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has been increasingly applied as a technique for multi-criteria decision analysis in healthcare. The AHP can aid decision makers in selecting the most valuable technology for patients, while taking into account multiple, and even conflicting, decision criteria. This tutorial illustrates the procedural steps of the AHP in supporting group decision making about new healthcare technology, including (1) identifying the decision goal, decision criteria, and alternative healthcare technologies to compare, (2) structuring the decision criteria, (3) judging the value of the alternative technologies on each decision criterion, (4) judging the importance of the decision criteria, (5) calculating group judgments, (6) analyzing the inconsistency in judgments, (7) calculating the overall value of the technologies, and (8) conducting sensitivity analyses. The AHP is illustrated via a hypothetical example, adapted from an empirical AHP analysis on the benefits and risks of tissue regeneration to repair small cartilage lesions in the knee. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 40% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 20% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 235 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 232 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 42 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 32 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 13% |
| Researcher | 12 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 4% |
| Other | 39 | 17% |
| Unknown | 69 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 48 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 16 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 4% |
| Environmental Science | 9 | 4% |
| Other | 52 | 22% |
| Unknown | 78 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 March 2014.
All research outputs
#7,290,783
of 25,856,713 outputs
Outputs from The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
#244
of 598 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,087
of 236,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,856,713 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 598 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 236,682 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.