Sequential decision tree using the analytic hierarchy process for decision support in rectal cancer

Süner, Aslı; Çelikoğlu, Can Cengiz; Dıcle, Oğuz; Sökmen, Selman

doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2012.05.003

Cited by 42 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In some studies, single participants were interviewed (e.g. [12–14]), whereas in others, group discussions were used to analyze the priorities (e.g. [15, 16]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of different approaches applied in Analytic Hierarchy Process – an example of information needs of patients with rare diseases

Pauer

Schmidt

Babac

et al. 2016

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is increasingly used to measure patient priorities. Studies have shown that there are several different approaches to data acquisition and data aggregation. The aim of this study was to measure the information needs of patients having a rare disease and to analyze the effects of these different AHP approaches. The ranking of information needs is then used to display information categories on a web-based information portal about rare diseases according to the patient’s priorities.MethodsThe information needs of patients suffering from rare diseases were identified by an Internet research study and a preliminary qualitative study. Hence, we designed a three-level hierarchy containing 13 criteria. For data acquisition, the differences in outcomes were investigated using individual versus group judgements separately. Furthermore, we analyzed the different effects when using the median and arithmetic and geometric means for data aggregation. A consistency ratio ≤0.2 was determined to represent an acceptable consistency level.ResultsForty individual and three group judgements were collected from patients suffering from a rare disease and their close relatives. The consistency ratio of 31 individual and three group judgements was acceptable and thus these judgements were included in the study. To a large extent, the local ranks for individual and group judgements were similar. Interestingly, group judgements were in a significantly smaller range than individual judgements. According to our data, the ranks of the criteria differed slightly according to the data aggregation method used.ConclusionsIt is important to explain and justify the choice of an appropriate method for data acquisition because response behaviors differ according to the method. We conclude that researchers should select a suitable method based on the thematic perspective or investigated topics in the study. Because the arithmetic mean is very vulnerable to outliers, the geometric mean and the median seem to be acceptable alternatives for data aggregation. Overall, using the AHP to identify patient priorities and enhance the user-friendliness of information websites offers an important contribution to medical informatics.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0346-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…In some studies, single participants were interviewed (e.g. [12–14]), whereas in others, group discussions were used to analyze the priorities (e.g. [15, 16]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of different approaches applied in Analytic Hierarchy Process – an example of information needs of patients with rare diseases

Pauer

Schmidt

Babac

et al. 2016

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are examples of OR techniques helping with patients' cancer treatment decisions (Simon, 2009;Suner, Çelikoglu, Dicle, & Sökmen, 2012;Utley, Paschalides, & Treasure, 2006). These studies are about various different cancer types and treatment options.…”

Section: Treatment Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The outcome of the model is the average additional months survival over a five-year period, and ranges from zero to twelve months. Contrastingly, Suner et al (2012) use the analytic hierarchy process to merge five experts' opinions on the importance of criteria in making two sequential treatment decisions. They find that the judgements of individuals are consistent, and represent the results in decision tree format.…”

Section: Treatment Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Utley et al (2006) focus on whether patients who have had surgery that appears to have cured their non-small cell lung cancer should have chemotherapy afterwards. Simon (2009) addresses the choice of prostate cancer treatments, while Suner et al (2012) model the two sequential decisions of renal cancer treatments. A range of techniques are applied.…”

Section: Treatment Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Operational research techniques applied throughout cancer care services: a review

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cancer is a disease affecting increasing numbers of people. In the UK, the proportion of people affected by cancer is projected to increase from 1 in 3 in 1992, to nearly 1 in 2 by 2020. Health services to tackle cancer can be grouped broadly into prevention, diagnosis, staging, and treatment. We review examples of Operational Research (OR) papers addressing decisions encountered in each of these areas. In conclusion, we find many examples of OR research on screening strategies, as well as on treatment planning and scheduling. On the other hand, our search strategy uncovered comparatively few examples of OR models applied to reducing cancer risks, optimising diagnostic procedures, and staging. Improvements to cancer care services have been made as a result of successful OR modelling. There is potential for closer working with clinicians to enable the impact of other OR studies to be of greater benefit to cancer sufferers. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

“…The experts group approach is used in health sector both clinical [28], [31] and nonclinical [5], [24], [29], [30], [32] decision-making. The goal of this paper is to develop, test and analyse a methodology for determining the qualitative and quantitative composition of an expert group and its application on example of the health technology decision making in the Czech Republic.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Method for selecting expert groups and determining the importance of experts' judgments for the purpose of managerial decision-making tasks in health system

Ivlev¹,

Kneppo²,

Barták³

2015

E+M

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sequential decision tree using the analytic hierarchy process for decision support in rectal cancer

Cited by 42 publications

References 42 publications

Comparison of different approaches applied in Analytic Hierarchy Process – an example of information needs of patients with rare diseases

Comparison of different approaches applied in Analytic Hierarchy Process – an example of information needs of patients with rare diseases

Operational research techniques applied throughout cancer care services: a review

Method for selecting expert groups and determining the importance of experts' judgments for the purpose of managerial decision-making tasks in health system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Sequential decision tree using the analytic hierarchy process for decision support in rectal cancer

Cited by 42 publications

References 42 publications

Comparison of different approaches applied in Analytic Hierarchy Process – an example of information needs of patients with rare diseases

Comparison of different approaches applied in Analytic Hierarchy Process – an example of information needs of patients with rare diseases

Operational research techniques applied throughout cancer care services: a review

Method for selecting expert groups and determining the importance of experts' judgments for the purpose of managerial decision-making tasks in health system ﻿

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Method for selecting expert groups and determining the importance of experts' judgments for the purpose of managerial decision-making tasks in health system