Framework Development for Clinical Comprehensive Evaluation of Drugs–a Study Protocol Using the Delphi Method and Analytic Hierarchy Process

Abstract

Measuring the value of drugs to help make health-care decisions is a complex process which involves confronting trade-offs among multiple objectives. Although guidelines have been released for clinical comprehensive evaluation of drugs, refinement is required when considering a specific drug used in a specific disease. In this study, a two-level framework for clinical comprehensive evaluation of drugs will be developed. Six first-level indicators, including safety, efficacy, costs/cost-effectiveness, novelty, suitability, and accessibility will be evaluated according to the Chinese Guideline for Clinical Comprehensive Evaluation of Drugs. The second-level components involved in the framework will be first validated by the Delphi method and subsequently compared with one another to get the index weight based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The scoring criteria of each component in the framework will also be determined by the Delphi method and AHP. The scoring criteria of components representing therapeutic effects will involve both score of therapeutic effects and score of evidence quality. With the evidence of the drug to be evaluated, the score of each component will be obtained according to the established scoring criteria, and the overall comprehensive score value of the drug will be calculated, which will assist the evidence-based decision making.

Developing quality indicators for cancer hospitals in China: a national modified Delphi process

“…The AHP method can measure the consensus of the experts' judgements by calculating a consistency ratio (CR), and CR<0.10 is considered as acceptable. 36 CRs in our study were all below 0.05, at a sound acceptable level (online supplemental table 3). The Yaahp software V.10.0 (Yaahp software, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China) was used for the AHP method, and the Excel software was used for the percentage weight method.…”

“…In the AHP method, Saaty’s 9-point scale was adopted to identify the relative importance of the indicators. The AHP method can measure the consensus of the experts’ judgements by calculating a consistency ratio (CR), and CR<0.10 is considered as acceptable 36. CRs in our study were all below 0.05, at a sound acceptable level (online supplemental table 3).…”

Strategies to preventing pressure injuries among intensive care unit patients mechanically ventilated in prone position: a systematic review and a Delphi study

“…Delphi surveys were sent to experts in two rounds of email between July 2022 and September 2022. In the studies using Delphi technique, consensus is defined as greater than 70% agreement on all components ( 38 , 39 ). Therefore, we defined consensus as the mean score of importance and operability >4.00 and coefficient of variation (Cv) <0.25.…”