| Title |
Method Development for Clinical Comprehensive Evaluation of Pediatric Drugs Based on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Application to Inhaled Corticosteroids for Children with Asthma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pediatric Drugs, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40272-017-0278-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yuncui Yu, Lulu Jia, Yao Meng, Lihua Hu, Yiwei Liu, Xiaolu Nie, Meng Zhang, Xuan Zhang, Sheng Han, Xiaoxia Peng, Xiaoling Wang |
| Abstract |
Establishing a comprehensive clinical evaluation system is critical in enacting national drug policy and promoting rational drug use. In China, the 'Clinical Comprehensive Evaluation System for Pediatric Drugs' (CCES-P) project, which aims to compare drugs based on clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness to help decision makers, was recently proposed; therefore, a systematic and objective method is required to guide the process. An evidence-based multi-criteria decision analysis model that involved an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was developed, consisting of nine steps: (1) select the drugs to be reviewed; (2) establish the evaluation criterion system; (3) determine the criterion weight based on the AHP; (4) construct the evidence body for each drug under evaluation; (5) select comparative measures and calculate the original utility score; (6) place a common utility scale and calculate the standardized utility score; (7) calculate the comprehensive utility score; (8) rank the drugs; and (9) perform a sensitivity analysis. The model was applied to the evaluation of three different inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) used for asthma management in children (a total of 16 drugs with different dosage forms and strengths or different manufacturers). By applying the drug analysis model, the 16 ICSs under review were successfully scored and evaluated. Budesonide suspension for inhalation (drug ID number: 7) ranked the highest, with comprehensive utility score of 80.23, followed by fluticasone propionate inhaled aerosol (drug ID number: 16), with a score of 79.59, and budesonide inhalation powder (drug ID number: 6), with a score of 78.98. In the sensitivity analysis, the ranking of the top five and lowest five drugs remains unchanged, suggesting this model is generally robust. An evidence-based drug evaluation model based on AHP was successfully developed. The model incorporates sufficient utility and flexibility for aiding the decision-making process, and can be a useful tool for the CCES-P. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 8 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 37% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 14% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 December 2017.
All research outputs
#15,434,520
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Drugs
#405
of 557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#265,933
of 439,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Drugs
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 557 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 439,661 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.