• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

混合方法利用 EQ-5D-5L 和先进的多准则技术改进健康状况效用值的推导。

Hybrid Methodology to Improve Health Status Utility Values Derivation Using EQ-5D-5L and Advanced Multi-Criteria Techniques.

机构信息

Departamento de Economía, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas y Económicas, Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede Medellín, Medellín 050034, Colombia.

Departamento de Ingeniería de la Organización, Facultad de Minas, Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede Medellín, Medellín 050034, Colombia.

出版信息

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Feb 22;17(4):1423. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17041423.

DOI:10.3390/ijerph17041423
PMID:32098423
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7068428/
Abstract

This paper presented a new approach to the calculation of quality-adjusted life years (QALY) based on multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods and using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. The health status utility values were calculated through a hybrid methodology. We combined the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), the AHP with a D-number extended fuzzy preference relation (D-AHP), the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (F-AHP), and the technique for order preference by similarity to the ideal solution (TOPSIS) to obtain individual and aggregated utility values. The preference data were elicited using a sample of individuals from a Colombian university. In all tested methods, the ordinal preferences were consistent, and the weights were compared using the Euclidean distance criterion (EDC). We identified F-AHP-TOPSIS as the optimal method; its benefits were associated with modeling the response options of the EQ-5D in linguistic terms, it gave the best approximation to the initial preferences according to EDC, and it could be used as an alternative to the known prioritization method. This hybrid methodology was particularly useful in certain medical decisions concerned with understanding how a specific person values his or her current health or possible health outcomes from different interventions in small population samples and studies carried out in low- and middle-low-income countries.

摘要

本文提出了一种基于多准则决策(MCDM)方法并使用 EQ-5D-5L 问卷计算质量调整生命年(QALY)的新方法。健康状况效用值通过混合方法计算得出。我们结合了层次分析法(AHP)、带有 D 数扩展模糊偏好关系的层次分析法(D-AHP)、模糊层次分析法(F-AHP)和逼近理想解的排序技术(TOPSIS),以获得个体和综合效用值。偏好数据是通过哥伦比亚大学的一个个体样本得出的。在所有测试的方法中,有序偏好是一致的,权重使用欧几里得距离准则(EDC)进行比较。我们确定 F-AHP-TOPSIS 是最佳方法;它的优势在于以语言术语对 EQ-5D 的回答选项进行建模,根据 EDC 对初始偏好进行了最佳逼近,并且可以作为已知优先级方法的替代方法。这种混合方法在某些医疗决策中特别有用,这些决策涉及理解特定个人如何评估其当前健康状况或不同干预措施可能带来的健康结果,适用于小样本量的人群和中低收入国家开展的研究。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/82eb/7068428/b0f6292c3250/ijerph-17-01423-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/82eb/7068428/b238067f488b/ijerph-17-01423-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/82eb/7068428/8661e31ae905/ijerph-17-01423-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/82eb/7068428/8fd9d61706d4/ijerph-17-01423-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/82eb/7068428/16ac3ee82d6b/ijerph-17-01423-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/82eb/7068428/b0f6292c3250/ijerph-17-01423-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/82eb/7068428/b238067f488b/ijerph-17-01423-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/82eb/7068428/8661e31ae905/ijerph-17-01423-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/82eb/7068428/8fd9d61706d4/ijerph-17-01423-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/82eb/7068428/16ac3ee82d6b/ijerph-17-01423-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/82eb/7068428/b0f6292c3250/ijerph-17-01423-g005.jpg

相似文献

1
Hybrid Methodology to Improve Health Status Utility Values Derivation Using EQ-5D-5L and Advanced Multi-Criteria Techniques.混合方法利用 EQ-5D-5L 和先进的多准则技术改进健康状况效用值的推导。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Feb 22;17(4):1423. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17041423.
2
A hybrid modelling approach for eliciting health state preferences: the Portuguese EQ-5D-5L value set.一种用于获取健康状态偏好的混合建模方法:葡萄牙 EQ-5D-5L 值集。
Qual Life Res. 2019 Dec;28(12):3163-3175. doi: 10.1007/s11136-019-02226-5. Epub 2019 Jun 14.
3
A Novel Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Building Material Supplier Selection Based on Entropy-AHP Weighted TOPSIS.一种基于熵权-层次分析法加权理想解法的新型建筑材料供应商选择多准则决策模型
Entropy (Basel). 2020 Feb 24;22(2):259. doi: 10.3390/e22020259.
4
Mapping the SRS-22r questionnaire onto the EQ-5D-5L utility score in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.将SRS-22r问卷映射到青少年特发性脊柱侧凸患者的EQ-5D-5L效用评分上。
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 17;12(4):e0175847. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175847. eCollection 2017.
5
Application of an integrated multi-criteria decision making AHP-TOPSIS methodology for ETL software selection.一种用于ETL软件选择的集成多准则决策AHP-TOPSIS方法的应用。
Springerplus. 2016 Mar 2;5:263. doi: 10.1186/s40064-016-1888-z. eCollection 2016.
6
Transshipment site selection using the AHP and TOPSIS approaches under fuzzy environment.模糊环境下基于层次分析法和理想点法的转运地点选择
Waste Manag. 2008;28(9):1552-9. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2007.05.019. Epub 2007 Sep 4.
7
The EQ-5D-5L Valuation study in Thailand.泰国的EQ-5D-5L估值研究。
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2018 Oct;18(5):551-558. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2018.1494574. Epub 2018 Jul 6.
8
Bottled water quality ranking via the multiple-criteria decision-making process: a case study of two-stage fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS.采用多准则决策过程对瓶装水质量进行排名:两阶段模糊层次分析法和逼近理想解排序法的案例研究。
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2022 Mar;29(14):20437-20448. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-16931-7. Epub 2021 Nov 4.
9
Parallel Valuation: A Direct Comparison of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L Societal Value Sets.平行评估:EQ-5D-3L 和 EQ-5D-5L 社会价值集的直接比较。
Med Decis Making. 2018 Nov;38(8):968-982. doi: 10.1177/0272989X18802797.
10
Cobot selection using hybrid AHP-TOPSIS based multi-criteria decision making technique for fuel filter assembly process.基于混合层次分析法-逼近理想解排序法的多准则决策技术在燃油滤清器装配过程中的协作机器人选型
Heliyon. 2024 Feb 15;10(4):e26374. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26374. eCollection 2024 Feb 29.

引用本文的文献

1
Measuring Quality of Public Hospitals in Croatia Using a Multi-Criteria Approach.使用多标准方法衡量克罗地亚公立医院的质量。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Sep 23;18(19):9984. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18199984.

本文引用的文献

1
The Corrective Approach: Policy Implications of Recent Developments in QALY Measurement Based on Prospect Theory.矫正方法:基于前景理论的 QALY 测量新进展对政策的启示。
Value Health. 2019 Jul;22(7):816-821. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.01.013. Epub 2019 May 17.
2
QALYs without bias? Nonparametric correction of time trade-off and standard gamble weights based on prospect theory.基于前景理论的时间权衡和标准博弈权重的无偏 QALYs 非参数校正。
Health Econ. 2019 Jul;28(7):843-854. doi: 10.1002/hec.3895.
3
Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art.
多准则决策分析在卫生技术评估中的应用:应对方法学挑战,提升现有技术水平。
Eur J Health Econ. 2019 Aug;20(6):891-918. doi: 10.1007/s10198-019-01052-3. Epub 2019 Apr 20.
4
Comparison of weighting methods used in multicriteria decision analysis frameworks in healthcare with focus on low- and middle-income countries.比较医疗保健中多准则决策分析框架中使用的权重方法,重点关注低收入和中等收入国家。
J Comp Eff Res. 2019 Mar;8(4):195-204. doi: 10.2217/cer-2018-0102. Epub 2019 Feb 15.
5
Equity Weights for Socioeconomic Position: Two Methods-Survey of Stated Preferences and Epidemiological Data.社会经济地位的权衡权重:两种方法——表述性偏好调查和流行病学数据。
Value Health. 2019 Feb;22(2):247-253. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.07.006. Epub 2018 Aug 28.
6
Future Directions in Valuing Benefits for Estimating QALYs: Is Time Up for the EQ-5D?未来衡量效益以估算 QALY 值的方向:时间是否已到 EQ-5D 发挥作用的时候了?
Value Health. 2019 Jan;22(1):62-68. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.12.001.
7
Comparing the EQ-5D-5L utility index based on value sets of different countries: impact on the interpretation of clinical study results.基于不同国家价值集比较EQ-5D-5L效用指数:对临床研究结果解释的影响
BMC Res Notes. 2019 Jan 14;12(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s13104-019-4067-9.
8
Quality-Adjusted Life-Years without Constant Proportionality.无恒定比例的质量调整生命年。
Value Health. 2018 Sep;21(9):1124-1131. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.02.004. Epub 2018 Mar 27.
9
Quantifying life: Understanding the history of Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs).量化生命:理解质量调整生命年(QALYs)的历史。
Soc Sci Med. 2018 Aug;211:359-366. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.07.004. Epub 2018 Jul 3.
10
How to weight patient-relevant treatment goals for assessing treatment benefit in psoriasis: preference elicitation methods vs. rating scales.如何权衡与患者相关的治疗目标,以评估银屑病的治疗获益:偏好 elicitation 方法与评分量表。
Arch Dermatol Res. 2018 Sep;310(7):567-577. doi: 10.1007/s00403-018-1846-4. Epub 2018 Jun 23.