Abstract
The prevalence of kidney stone disease has increased during the last decade due to various reasons such as changes in dietary and water consumption. To overcome this issue, new treatment approaches are being developed. Today, Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and Laser Lithotripsy (LL) are the most popular approaches for the fragmentation of kidney stones. However, the advantages and limitations of these treatment methods are still being questioned by healthcare professionals. A systematic and efficient approach is thus required to help healthcare providers for selecting the best treatment approach. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) techniques are a reliable and powerful approach to respond to the need for such comparative analysis. Hence, the aim of this study is to propose an HTA-based hierarchical evaluation structure for kidney stone treatment methods utilizing the Hierarchical Fuzzy TOPSIS method and conduct a case study on LL and ESWL. The structure consists of 5 main criteria and 24 sub-criteria. The study group for linguistic evaluations consists of medical doctors (nephrologists and urologists) and researchers. Closeness coefficient values are obtained as 0.577 and 0.372 for LL and ESWL, respectively. It is concluded that LL should be selected as the ideal alternative under the proposed hierarchical evaluation structure. The study is expected to bring insights to further studies as well as healthcare providers who are working in the field.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Adunlin G, Diaby V, Xiao H (2015) Application of multicriteria decision analysis in health care: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Health Expect 18:1894–1905. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12287
Ağaç G, Baki B (2016) Sağlık alanında çok kriterli karar verme teknikleri kullanımı: literatür incelemesi. Hacettepe Sağlık İdaresi Dergisi 19(3):343–363
Aladağ Z, Avcı S, Çelik B et al (2017) Özel hastane seçim kriterlerinin analitik hiyerarşi prosesi ile değerlendirilmesi ve kocaeli ili uygulaması. In: 5th international symposium on innovative Technologies in Engineering and Science, Baku, Azerbaijan, 29–30 Sep 2017
Andersohn F, Bornemann R, Damm O et al (2014) Vaccination of children with a live-atteunated, intranasal influenza vaccine-analysis and evaluation through a health technology assessment. GMS Health Technol Assess 10:Doc03. https://doi.org/10.3205/hta000119
Angelis A, Kanavos P (2014) Applying multiple criteria decision analysis in the context of health technology assessment: an empirical case study. Value Health 17:A552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.08.1804
Angelis A, Kanavos P (2017) Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in health technology assessment and beyond: the advance value framework. Soc Sci Med 188:137–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.06.024
Ayan TY, Perçin S (2012) AR-GE projelerinin seçiminde grup kararına dayalı bulanık karar verme yaklaşımı. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi 26(2):237–255
Banta D (2003) The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 63(2):121–132
Belton V, Stewart TJ (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer Academic, London
Bilekova BK, Gavurova B, Rogalewicz V (2018) Application of the HTA Core Model for complex evaluation of the effectiveness and quality of Radium-223 treatment in patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer. Health Econ Rev 8:27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-018-0211-9
Bridges JFP, Jones C (2007) Patient-based health technology assessment: a vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23:30–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462307051549
Broekhuizen H, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, van Til JA et al (2015) A review and classification of approaches for dealing with uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis for healthcare decisions. Pharmacoconomics 33:445–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0251-x
Büyüközkan G, Çiftçi G (2012) A combined fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS based strategic analysis of electronic service quality in healthcare industry. Expert Syst Appl 39:2341–2354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.08.061
Chan FTS, Kumar N, Tiwari M et al (2008) Global supplier selection: a fuzzy-AHP approach. Int J Prod Res 46:3825–3857. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540600787200
Diaby V, Goeree R (2014) How to use multi-criteria decision analysis methods for reimbursement decision-making in healthcare: a step-by-step guide. Expert Rev Pharm Out 14:81–99. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.2014.859525
Drake JI, de Hart JCT, Monleón C et al (2017) Utilization of multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support healthcare decision-making. J Mark Access Health Policy 5:1360545. https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2017.1360545
Ettinger S, Stanak M, Szymański P et al (2017) Wearable cardioverter defibrillators for the prevention of sudden cardiac arrest: a health technology assessment and patient focus group study. Med Devices (Auckl) 10:257–271. https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S144048
EUnetHTA (2016) Joint Action 2, Work Package 8. HTA Core Model ® version 3.0. https://www.eunethta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/HTACoreModel3.0-1.pdf. Accessed 07 Sep 2019
European Association of Urology (EAU) (2018) EAU guidelines on urolithiasis. https://uroweb.org/guidelines/. Accessed 20 Nov 2018
Frosini F, Miniati R, Grillone S, Dori F, Gentili GB, Belardinelli A (2016) Integrated HTA-FMEA/FMECA methodology for the evaluation of robotic system in urology and general surgery. Technol Health Care 24(6):873–887
Garrido MV, Kristensen FB, Nielsen CP et al (2008) Health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe: current status, challenges and potential. London
Giansanti D, Pochini M, Giovagnoli MR (2014) Integration of tablet technologies in the e-laboratory of cytology: a health technology assessment. Telemed e-Health 20(10):909–915
Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H et al (2008) Evidence and value: impact on DEcisionMaking – the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res 8:270. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-8-270
Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H et al (2012) Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal. Med Decis Mak 32:376–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X11416870
Hardy LA (2018) Improving thulium fiber laser lithotripsy efficiency. Dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Hasan M, Büyüktahtakın E, Elamin E (2019) A multi-criteria ranking algorithm (MCRA) for determining breast cancer therapy. Omega 82:83–101
Howard S, Scott IA, Ju H et al (2018) Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) for health technology assessment: the Queensland health experience. Aust Health Rev. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH18042
Ivlev I, Vacek J, Kneppo P (2015) Multi-criteria decision analysis for supporting the selection of medical devices under uncertainty. Eur J Oper 247:216–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.05.075
Ivlev I, Jablonsky J, Kneppo P (2016) Multiple-criteria comparative analysis of magnetic resonance imaging systems. Int J Med Inform 8:124. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijmei.2016.075757
Jansen TC, van Bommel J, Bakker J (2009) Blood lactate monitoring in critically ill patients: a systematic health technology assessment. Crit Care Med 37:2827–2839. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a98899
Kahraman C, Ateş NF, Çevik S et al (2007) Hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS model for selection among logistics information technologies. J Enterp 20:143–168. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410390710725742
Karadayi MA, Karsak EE (2014) Fuzzy MCDM approach for health-care performance assessment in Istanbul. In: Callaos N, Hashimoto S, Rutkauskas AV, Sanchez B, Zinn CD (eds) The 18th world multi-conference on systemics, cybernetics and informatics proceedings vol ii, Florida, July 2014. SIII
Karatas M, Tozan H, Karacan I (2018) An integrated multi-criteria decision making methodology for health technology assessment. Eur J Ind Eng 12:504. https://doi.org/10.1504/ejie.2018.10014740
La Torre G, de Waure C, Chiaradia G et al (2010) The health technology assessment of bivalent hpv vaccine cervarix® in Italy. Vaccine 28:3379–3384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.02.080
Liu HC, Wu J, Li P (2013) Assessment of health-care waste disposal methods using a VIKOR-based fuzzy multi-criteria decision making method. Waste Manag 33:2744–2751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.08.006
Mahboub-Ahari A, Hajebrahimi S, Yusefi M et al (2016) EOS imaging versus current radiography: a health technology assessment study. Med J Islam Repub Iran 30:331
Martelli N, Hansen P, van den Brink H et al (2016) Combining multi-criteria decision analysis and mini-health technology assessment: a funding decision-support tool for medical devices in a university hospital setting. J Biomed Inform 59:201–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2015.12.002
Miniati R, Dori F, Cecconi G et al (2013) HTA decision support system for sustainable business continuity management in hospitals: the case of surgical activity at the University Hospital in Florence. Technol Health Care 21:49–61. https://doi.org/10.3233/THC-120709
Mitchell MD, Williams K, Brennan PJ, Umscheid CA (2010) Integrating local data into hospital-based healthcare technology assessment: two case studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 26(3):294–300
Mühlbacher AC, Kaczynski A (2016) Making good decisions in healthcare with multi-criteria decision analysis: the use, current research and future development of MCDA. Appl Health Econ Health Pol 14:29–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-015-0203-4
Nojomi M, Moradi-Lakeh M, Velayati A et al (2016) Health technology assessment of non-invasive interventions for weight loss and body shape in Iran. Med J Islam Repub Iran 30:348
Oliviera MD, Mataloto I, Kanavos P (2019) Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art. Eur J Health Econ 20:891–918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-019-01052-3
Özlük C (2012) Proksimal üreter taşlarının tedavisinde ESWL, pnömotik litotripsi ve lazerle litotripsi metodlarının etkinliklerinin karşılaştırılması. Dissertation, Gazi University
Öztürk N (2017) Multi criteria decision making model for health technology assessment and an application in dialysis. Dissertation, Marmara University
Öztürk N, Tozan H, Vayvay Ö (2016) Comprehensive needs analysis for health technology assessment studies and improvement proposal. Eurasian J Health Technol Assess 1(1):69–76
Özüdoǧru AG (2018) Determination of biomedical device selection criteria. In: 2018 Medical Technologies National Congress (TIPTEKNO 2018). 2018 Medical technologies National Congress, Magusa, Cyprus, November 2018. IEEE, pp 1–4
Padma T, Balasubramanie P (2011) A fuzzy analytic hierarchy processing decision support system to analyze occupational menace forecasting the spawning of shoulder and neck pain. Expert Syst Appl 38:15303–15309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.06.037
Palozzi G, Brunelli S, Falivena C (2018) Higher sustainability and lower opportunistic behaviour in healthcare: a new framework for performing hospital-based health technology assessment. Sustainability 10(10):3550
Perry TS (1995) Lotfi A. Zadeh [fuzzy logic inventor biography]. IEEE Spectr 32:32–35. https://doi.org/10.1109/6.387136
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health (2019) What is HTA?. http://www.hta.gov.tr/EN/std_hta.aspx. Accessed 07 Sep 2019
Saarni SI, Anttila H, Saarni SE et al (2011) Ethical issues of obesity surgery—a health technology assessment. Obes Surg 21:1469–1476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-011-0386-1
Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K et al (2016) Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making – an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA emerging good practices task force. Value Health 19:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.003
Tony M, Wagner M, Khoury H et al (2011) Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multicriteria decision analyses (MCDA): field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada. BMC Health Serv Res 11:329. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-329
Torfi F, Farahan RZ, Rezapour S (2010) Fuzzy AHP to determine the relative weights of evaluation criteria and fuzzy TOPSIS to rank the alternatives. Appl Soft Comput 10:520–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2009.08.021
Urologic Surgeons of Washington (2019) Ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy for the treatment of kidney stones. https://www.dcurology.net/procedures/ureteroscopy-with-laser-lithotripsy.php. Accessed 07 Sep 2019
Urologist Bhopal (2019) ESWL – external shockwave lithotripsy. http://wwwa.urologistbhopal.com/medical-care/surgery-for-kidney-stones/eswl-external-shockwave-lithotripsy/. Accessed 07 Sep 2019
Váchová L, Hajdíkova T (2017) Evaluation of Czech hospitals performance using MCDM methods. In: Proceedings of the world congress on engineering and computer science 2017, vol II, San Francisco, 25–27 Oct 2017
Velmurugan R, Selvamuthukumar S (2012) The analytic network process for the pharmaceutical sector: multi criteria decision making to select the suitable method for the preparation of nanoparticles. J Pharm Sci 20:59. https://doi.org/10.1186/2008-2231-20-59
Wagner M, Khoury H, Bennetts L et al (2017) Appraising the holistic value of Lenvatinib for radio-iodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer: a multi-country study applying pragmatic MCDA. BMC Cancer 17:272. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3258-9
Wang X, Chan HK (2013) A hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS approach to assess improvement areas when implementing green supply chain initiatives. Int J Prod Res 51:3117–3130. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.754553
Wickham JEA (1985) Extracorporeal shock wave treatment for kidney stones. Br J Urol 290:188–189
World Health Organization (2019) Health Technology Assessment. https://www.who.int/medical_devices/assessment/en/. Accessed 07 Sept 2019
Yazdani S, Jadidfard M (2017) Developing a decision support system to link health technology assessment (HTA) reports to the health system policies in Iran. Health Policy Plann 32:504–515. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czw160
Yiğit A, Erdem R (2016) Sağlık teknolojisi değerlendirme: kavramsal bir çerçeve. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 1(23):215–249
Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
Zhao H, Guo S, Zhao H (2019) Comprehensive assessment for battery energy storage systems based on fuzzy-MCDM considering risk preferences. Energy 168:450–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.11.129
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: A Brief Version of the Survey Used to Collect Verbal Evaluations
Appendix: A Brief Version of the Survey Used to Collect Verbal Evaluations
1.1 1. An Example Question for Linguistic Evaluation of Alternatives with Respect to Sub-criteria
1.2 2. The Question Used to Determine Weights of the Main Criteria
1.3 3. An Example Question Used to Determine Weights of the Sub-criteria
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Erol, E., Yilmaz, B.Ö., Karadayi, M.A., Tozan, H. (2021). An MCDM-Based Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Study for Evaluating Kidney Stone Treatment Alternatives. In: Topcu, Y.I., Özaydın, Ö., Kabak, Ö., Önsel Ekici, Ş. (eds) Multiple Criteria Decision Making. MCDM 2019. Contributions to Management Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52406-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52406-7_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-52405-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-52406-7
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)