IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v43y2023i1p78-90.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multicriteria Decision-Making Methods for Optimal Treatment Selection in Network Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Ioannis Bellos

Abstract

Background Network meta-analysis exploits randomized data to compare multiple interventions and generate rankings. Selecting an optimal treatment may be complicated when multiple conflicting outcomes are evaluated in parallel. Design The present study suggested the incorporation of multicriteria decision-making methods in network meta-analyses to select the best intervention when multiple outcomes are of interest by creating partial and absolute rankings with the TOPSIS, VIKOR, and PROMETHEE algorithms. The TOPSIS and VIKOR techniques represent distance-based methods for compromise intervention selection, whereas the PROMETHEE analysis method allows the definition of preference and indifference thresholds. In addition, the PROMETHEE technique allows a variety of modeling options by selecting alternative preference functions. Different weights may be applied to outcomes objectively with the entropy method as well as subjectively with the analytic hierarchy process, enabling the individualization of treatment choice depending on the clinical scenario. Results Visualization of decision analysis may be performed with multicriteria score-adjusted scatterplots, while league tables may be constructed to depict the PROMETHEE I partial ordering of interventions. A simulated study was performed assuming equal weights of outcomes, and the TOPSIS, VIKOR, and PROMETHEE II methods were compared using a similarity coefficient, indicating a high degree of agreement among methods, especially with higher numbers of interventions. Conclusions Multicriteria decision analysis provides a flexible and computationally direct way of selecting compromise interventions and visualizing treatment selection in network meta-analyses. Further research should provide empirical data about the implementation of multicriteria decision analysis in real-world network meta-analyses aiming to define the most suitable method depending on the clinical question. Highlights Multicriteria decision-making methods can be implemented in network meta-analysis to indicate compromise interventions. The TOPSIS, VIKOR, and PROMETHEE methods can be used for optimal treatment selection when conflicting outcomes are evaluated. The weights of outcomes can be defined objectively or subjectively, reflecting the priorities of the decision maker.

Suggested Citation

  • Ioannis Bellos, 2023. "Multicriteria Decision-Making Methods for Optimal Treatment Selection in Network Meta-Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(1), pages 78-90, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:1:p:78-90
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X221126678
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X221126678
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X221126678?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ali Emrouznejad & Marianna Marra, 2017. "The state of the art development of AHP (1979–2017): a literature review with a social network analysis," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(22), pages 6653-6675, November.
    2. J. P. Brans & Ph. Vincke, 1985. "Note---A Preference Ranking Organisation Method," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 647-656, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jiang, Yanping & Liang, Xia & Liang, Haiming & Yang, Ningman, 2018. "Multiple criteria decision making with interval stochastic variables: A method based on interval stochastic dominance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(2), pages 632-643.
    2. Juliana Martins Ruzante & Valerie J. Davidson & Julie Caswell & Aamir Fazil & John A. L. Cranfield & Spencer J. Henson & Sven M. Anders & Claudia Schmidt & Jeffrey M. Farber, 2010. "A Multifactorial Risk Prioritization Framework for Foodborne Pathogens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 724-742, May.
    3. Francesco Sica & Francesco Tajani & Maria Rosaria Guarini & Rossana Ranieri, 2023. "A Sensitivity Index to Perform the Territorial Sustainability in Uncertain Decision-Making Conditions," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, February.
    4. Rihab Khemiri & Khaoula Elbedoui-Maktouf & Bernard Grabot & Belhassen Zouari, 2017. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach for managing performance and risk in integrated procurement-production planning," Post-Print hal-01758604, HAL.
    5. Vijay Pereira & Umesh Bamel, 2023. "Charting the managerial and theoretical evolutionary path of AHP using thematic and systematic review: a decadal (2012–2021) study," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 635-651, July.
    6. Martina Kuncova & Jana Seknickova, 2022. "Two-stage weighted PROMETHEE II with results’ visualization," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 30(2), pages 547-571, June.
    7. Rafael Lizarralde & Jaione Ganzarain & Mikel Zubizarreta, 2020. "Assessment and Selection of Technologies for the Sustainable Development of an R&D Center," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-23, December.
    8. Alessio Ishizaka & Philippe Nemery, 2013. "A Multi-Criteria Group Decision Framework for Partner Grouping When Sharing Facilities," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 773-799, July.
    9. Mahmoudi, Reza & Emrouznejad, Ali & Shetab-Boushehri, Seyyed-Nader & Hejazi, Seyed Reza, 2020. "The origins, development and future directions of data envelopment analysis approach in transportation systems," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    10. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.
    11. Alexandra Lenis Escobar & Ramón Rueda López & Jorge E. García Guerrero & Enrique Salinas Cuadrado, 2020. "Design of Strategies for the Implementation and Management of a Complementary Monetary System Using the SWOT-AHP Methodology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-23, August.
    12. Lahdelma, Risto & Makkonen, Simo & Salminen, Pekka, 2009. "Two ways to handle dependent uncertainties in multi-criteria decision problems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 79-92, February.
    13. G Özerol & E Karasakal, 2008. "Interactive outranking approaches for multicriteria decision-making problems with imprecise information," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(9), pages 1253-1268, September.
    14. Rudolf Vetschera & Michael Filzmoser & Ronald Mitterhofer, 2014. "An Analytical Approach to Offer Generation in Concession-Based Negotiation Processes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 71-99, January.
    15. Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2016. "Combining analytical hierarchy process and Choquet integral within non-additive robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 2-18.
    16. Chrysovalantis Gaganis, 2016. "Assessing the overall performance of microfinance institutions," International Journal of Banking, Accounting and Finance, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(1), pages 52-83.
    17. Arcidiacono, Sally Giuseppe & Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore, 2021. "Robust stochastic sorting with interacting criteria hierarchically structured," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(2), pages 735-754.
    18. Philip-Mark Spanidis & Christos Roumpos & Francis Pavloudakis, 2020. "A Multi-Criteria Approach for the Evaluation of Low Risk Restoration Projects in Continuous Surface Lignite Mines," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-22, May.
    19. Amor, Sarah Ben & Jabeur, Khaled & Martel, Jean-Marc, 2007. "Multiple criteria aggregation procedure for mixed evaluations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1506-1515, September.
    20. Mateusz Hämmerling & Joanna Kocięcka & Stanisław Zaborowski, 2021. "AHP as a Useful Tool in the Assessment of the Technical Condition of Hydrotechnical Constructions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-26, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:1:p:78-90. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.