Developing and validating a multi-criteria decision analytic tool to assess the value of cancer clinical trials: evaluating cancer clinical trial value.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation Pub Date : 2023-11-14 DOI:10.1186/s12962-023-00496-y
Piers Gillett, Robert K Mahar, Nancy R Tran, Mark Rosenthal, Maarten IJzerman
{"title":"Developing and validating a multi-criteria decision analytic tool to assess the value of cancer clinical trials: evaluating cancer clinical trial value.","authors":"Piers Gillett, Robert K Mahar, Nancy R Tran, Mark Rosenthal, Maarten IJzerman","doi":"10.1186/s12962-023-00496-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Demonstrating safety and efficacy of new medical treatments requires clinical trials but clinical trials are costly and may not provide value proportionate to their costs. As most health systems have limited resources, it is therefore important to identify the trials with the highest value. Tools exist to assess elements of a clinical trial such as statistical validity but are not wholistic in their valuation of a clinical trial. This study aims to develop a measure of clinical trials value and provide an online tool for clinical trial prioritisation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search of the academic and grey literature and stakeholder consultation was undertaken to identify a set of criteria to aid clinical trial valuation using multi-criteria decision analysis. Swing weighting and ranking exercises were used to calculate appropriate weights of each of the included criteria and to estimate the partial-value function for each underlying metric. The set of criteria and their respective weights were applied to the results of six different clinical trials to calculate their value.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven criteria were identified: 'unmet need', 'size of target population', 'eligible participants can access the trial', 'patient outcomes', 'total trial cost', 'academic impact' and 'use of trial results'. The survey had 80 complete sets of responses (51% response rate). A trial designed to address an 'Unmet Need' was most commonly ranked as the most important with a weight of 24.4%, followed by trials demonstrating improved 'Patient Outcomes' with a weight of 21.2%. The value calculated for each trial allowed for their clear delineation and thus a final value ranking for each of the six trials.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We confirmed that the use of the decision tool for valuing clinical trials is feasible and that the results are face valid based on the evaluation of six trials. A proof-of-concept applying this tool to a larger set of trials with an external validation is currently underway.</p>","PeriodicalId":47054,"journal":{"name":"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10647033/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-023-00496-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Demonstrating safety and efficacy of new medical treatments requires clinical trials but clinical trials are costly and may not provide value proportionate to their costs. As most health systems have limited resources, it is therefore important to identify the trials with the highest value. Tools exist to assess elements of a clinical trial such as statistical validity but are not wholistic in their valuation of a clinical trial. This study aims to develop a measure of clinical trials value and provide an online tool for clinical trial prioritisation.

Methods: A search of the academic and grey literature and stakeholder consultation was undertaken to identify a set of criteria to aid clinical trial valuation using multi-criteria decision analysis. Swing weighting and ranking exercises were used to calculate appropriate weights of each of the included criteria and to estimate the partial-value function for each underlying metric. The set of criteria and their respective weights were applied to the results of six different clinical trials to calculate their value.

Results: Seven criteria were identified: 'unmet need', 'size of target population', 'eligible participants can access the trial', 'patient outcomes', 'total trial cost', 'academic impact' and 'use of trial results'. The survey had 80 complete sets of responses (51% response rate). A trial designed to address an 'Unmet Need' was most commonly ranked as the most important with a weight of 24.4%, followed by trials demonstrating improved 'Patient Outcomes' with a weight of 21.2%. The value calculated for each trial allowed for their clear delineation and thus a final value ranking for each of the six trials.

Conclusion: We confirmed that the use of the decision tool for valuing clinical trials is feasible and that the results are face valid based on the evaluation of six trials. A proof-of-concept applying this tool to a larger set of trials with an external validation is currently underway.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
开发和验证一种多标准决策分析工具来评估癌症临床试验的价值:评估癌症临床试验的价值。
背景:证明新医学治疗的安全性和有效性需要临床试验,但临床试验成本高昂,可能无法提供与其成本相称的价值。由于大多数卫生系统资源有限,因此确定具有最高价值的试验非常重要。现有的工具可以评估临床试验的要素,如统计有效性,但它们对临床试验的评估并不全面。本研究旨在开发一种衡量临床试验价值的方法,并为临床试验优先排序提供一个在线工具。方法:对学术文献和灰色文献进行检索,并与利益相关者协商,以确定一套标准,以帮助使用多标准决策分析进行临床试验评估。使用摇摆加权和排序练习来计算每个包括的标准的适当权重,并估计每个基本指标的部分值函数。将这组标准及其各自的权重应用于六个不同临床试验的结果,以计算其值。结果:确定了七个标准:“未满足的需求”、“目标人群的规模”、“符合条件的参与者可以参加试验”、“患者结果”、“试验总成本”、“学术影响”和“试验结果的使用”。调查共有80套完整的回答(51%的回复率)。旨在解决“未满足需求”的试验最常被列为最重要的,权重为24.4%,其次是证明改善“患者结果”的试验,权重为21.2%。为每个试验计算的值允许它们清晰地描述,从而为六个试验中的每个试验提供最终值排名。结论:通过对6个临床试验的评价,我们证实了使用决策工具评价临床试验是可行的,结果是有效的。目前正在进行一项概念验证,将该工具应用于一组更大的具有外部验证的试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
59
审稿时长
34 weeks
期刊介绍: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that considers manuscripts on all aspects of cost-effectiveness analysis, including conceptual or methodological work, economic evaluations, and policy analysis related to resource allocation at a national or international level. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation is aimed at health economists, health services researchers, and policy-makers with an interest in enhancing the flow and transfer of knowledge relating to efficiency in the health sector. Manuscripts are encouraged from researchers based in low- and middle-income countries, with a view to increasing the international economic evidence base for health.
期刊最新文献
Exploring the potential cost-effectiveness of a new computerised decision support tool for identifying fetal compromise during monitored term labours: an early health economic model. Financial incentives in the management of diabetes: a systematic review. Economic evaluation of NALIRIFOX vs. nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine regimens for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from U.S. perspective. The costs of implementing anaemia reduction interventions among women fish processors in Ghana. Global bibliometric analysis of cost effectiveness analysis in healthcare research from 2013 to 2023.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1