scholarly journals Use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Medication Decision-Making in Type 2 Diabetes

PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. e0126625 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nisa M. Maruthur ◽  
Susan M. Joy ◽  
James G. Dolan ◽  
Hasan M. Shihab ◽  
Sonal Singh
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy Process ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
The Analytic Hierarchy Process ◽  
Hierarchy Process

scholarly journals Using the analytic hierarchy process to prioritize alternative medicine: selecting the most suitable medicine for patients with diabetes

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammed A. Balubaid ◽  
Mohammed A. Basheikh
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy Process ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
Patients With Diabetes ◽  
The Analytic Hierarchy Process ◽  
Hierarchy Process

<p>Diabetes mellitus (DM) is emerging as a major public health problem in Saudi Arabia and this disease affects the Middle East in general. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was performed to select the most appropriate oral hypoglycemic agent for use as a monotherapy among newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes. Eight important criteria resulted from the hierarchy structure: side effects, chronic disease, background scientific evidence, age, weight, cost, education level, and gender. The involvement of these different factors reveals that treating diabetes is a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) problem. Thus, AHP was used because it is one of the most common MCDM tools. This project developed a mathematical decision-making model that prioritizes the available medications for patients with diabetes in terms of the aforementioned criteria. Oral type 2 diabetes medications (metformin, pioglitazone, sitagliptin, and glimepiride) were ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th, respectively; their weights were 48.42%, 24.47%, 13.61% and 13.50%, respectively. Thus, metformin is recommended because it has the highest weight. Side effects were the most important factor affecting drug selection. The AHP provides an overall ranking to aid with final decisions. Unquestionably, the results of this project, or at least the proposed methodology, facilitate the decision-making process, which is important because it assists the decision maker in determining which oral drug to choose for newly diagnosed patients with diabetes.</p>

scholarly journals Systematic assessment of benefits and risks: study protocol for a multi-criteria decision analysis using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for comparative effectiveness research

F1000Research ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nisa M Maruthur ◽  
Susan Joy ◽  
James Dolan ◽  
Jodi B Segal ◽  
Hasan M Shihab ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy Process ◽  
Decision Analysis ◽  
Study Protocol ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
The Third ◽  
Risks And Benefits ◽  
Hierarchy Process

Background: Regulatory decision-making involves assessment of risks and benefits of medications at the time of approval or when relevant safety concerns arise with a medication. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) facilitates decision-making in complex situations involving tradeoffs by considering risks and benefits of alternatives. The AHP allows a more structured method of synthesizing and understanding evidence in the context of importance assigned to outcomes. Our objective is to evaluate the use of an AHP in a simulated committee setting selecting oral medications for type 2 diabetes. Methods:This study protocol describes the AHP in five sequential steps using a small group of diabetes experts representing various clinical disciplines. The first step will involve defining the goal of the decision and developing the AHP model. In the next step, we will collect information about how well alternatives are expected to fulfill the decision criteria. In the third step, we will compare the ability of the alternatives to fulfill the criteria and judge the importance of eight criteria relative to the decision goal of the optimal medication choice for type 2 diabetes. We will use pairwise comparisons to sequentially compare the pairs of alternative options regarding their ability to fulfill the criteria. In the fourth step, the scales created in the third step will be combined to create a summary score indicating how well the alternatives met the decision goal. The resulting scores will be expressed as percentages and will indicate the alternative medications' relative abilities to fulfill the decision goal. The fifth step will consist of sensitivity analyses to explore the effects of changing the estimates. We will also conduct a cognitive interview and process evaluation. Discussion: Multi-criteria decision analysis using the AHP will aid, support and enhance the ability of decision makers to make evidence-based informed decisions consistent with their values and preferences.

JUDGMENT NUMBER REDUCTION: AN ISSUE IN THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS

2010 ◽  
Vol 09 (01) ◽  
pp. 175-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
LONG-TING WU ◽  
XIA CUI ◽  
RU-WEI DAI
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy Process ◽  
Pairwise Comparison ◽  
Random Variable ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
Priority Vector ◽  
Judgment Error ◽  
Scale Error ◽  
The Analytic Hierarchy Process ◽  
Hierarchy Process

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) uses pairwise comparison to evaluate alternatives' advantages to a certain criterion. For decision-making problem with many different criteria and alternatives, pairwise comparison causes a prolonged decision-making period and rises fatigue in decision-makers' mentality. A question of practical value is if there exists a way to reduce judgment number and what influence the reduction will have on the overall evaluation of alternative ratings. To answer this question, we introduce scale error and judgment error into AHP judgment matrix. By expanding the scales defined in the AHP, scale error is eliminated. Taking judgment error as random variable, a new estimator to calculate priority vector is presented. In the end, an example is proved to show lowering judgment number will increase the probability of larger errors appearing in priority vector computation.

scholarly journals USING THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS FOR DECISION MAKING IN SMART TRAFFIC LIGHT FOR HIGH PRIORITY VEHICLE

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-153
Author(s):  
Muhammad Izzuddin Mahali ◽  
Eko Marpanaji ◽  
Muhammad Adi Febri Setiawan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy Process ◽  
Traffic Light ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
The Analytic Hierarchy Process ◽  
Waterfall Model ◽  
Smart Traffic ◽  
Hierarchy Process

Kemacetan sering terjadi di banyak persimpangan jalan kota-kota besar di Indonesia. Sesuatu yang penting seperti kendaraan prioritas sering pula berada pada kemaccetan tersebut. Untuk mengatasi permasalahan tersebut terdapat inovasi baru yaitu Intelligent Traffic Light yang dibekali dengan Aplikasi “Bang Jopin”. Namun terdapat permasalahan baru ketika ada kendaraan prioritas melakukan request emergency secara bersamaan pada traffic light yang sama. Penentuan prioritas tidak dapat dilakukan dengan pengurutan saja karena ketika memprioritaskan kendaraan pada traffic light harus mempertimbangkan karakteristik traffic light dan kebiasaan pengendara.    Oleh kerena itu, Metode Analitical Hierarchy Process (AHP) merupakan solusi yang tepat dalam menentukan kendaraan prioritas yang didahulukan ketika ada lebih dari satu request pada satu waktu. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menentukan bobot masing-masing kriteria, menguji fungsi program, dan menerapkannya pada perangkat. Metode Penelitian yang digunakan adalah waterfall model.

scholarly journals There is still time to submit papers to ISAHP 2018!

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Rokou
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy Process ◽  
International Symposium ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
The Analytic Hierarchy Process ◽  
Hierarchy Process

The International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (ISAHP) for Decision Making brings together researchers, academics, students and other users of AHP/ANP to share their research and experiences in decision making. In this article the highlights of the upcoming conference are presented.

Some Conflicting Results in the Analytic Hierarchy Process

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (02) ◽  
pp. 465-486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ardalan Bafahm ◽  
Minghe Sun
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy Process ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Unexpected Result ◽  
Multi Criteria Decision Making ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
Preference Relations ◽  
The Analytic Hierarchy Process ◽  
Hierarchy Process

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has been believed to be one of the most pragmatic and widely accepted methods for multi-criteria decision making. However, there have been various criticisms of this method within the last four decades. In this study, the results of AHP contradicting common expectations are examined for both the distributive and ideal modes. Specifically, conflicting priorities, conflicting decisions, and conflicting preference relations are investigated. A decision-making scenario is used throughout the paper and an illustrative example constructed from the decision-making scenario is provided to demonstrate each of the conflicting results recommended by AHP. With a parametric formulation of each unexpected result, the possibility of unexpected results of AHP is generalized irrespective of applying the distributive or ideal mode. The logic and causes of these contradictions are also analyzed. This study shows that AHP is not always reliable, and could lead the decision makers towards incorrect decisions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document