| dc.relation | 1. Vranes S, Pizzio F. A decision support system for holistic technology assessment. In: University as a Bridge from Technology to Society IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (Cat No00CH37043). IEEE; 2000. p. 269–74.
2. Chicaiza, L;Vega R. Determinantes de la utilización de la evaluación económica en la toma de decisiones dentro del sistema de salud colombiano. Rev Innovar. 2008;18(31).
3. Giedion U, Bitrán R, Tristao I, En C, Fuente Proporcionada Por L, Biblioteca L, et al. Planes de Beneficios en Salud de América Latina. Health Benefit Plans in Latin America (Spanish: Planes de beneficios en salud de América Latina). 2014. 247 p.
4. MPS. Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud: Aplicaciones y Recomendaciones en el Sistema de Seguridad Social en Salud Colombiano. Bogotá, Colombia; 2009.
5. Giedion U, Villar M, Ávila A. Los sistemas de salud en Latinoamérica y el papel del seguro privado. 2010. 341 p.
6. Nunes R, Rego G. Priority setting in health care: a complementary approach. Health Care Anal. 2014;22(3):292–303.
7. Kuhn-Barrientos L. Evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias: Marco conceptual y perspectiva global. Rev Med Chil. 2014;142(SUPPL. 1).
8. Vallejos C, Bustos L, De La Puente C, Reveco R, Velásquez M, Zaror C. Principales aspectos metodológicos en la Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias. Rev Med Chil. 2014;142(SUPPL. 1):16–21.
9. Noorani HZ, Husereau DR, Boudreau R, Skidmore B. Priority setting for health technology assessments: A systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(3):310–5.
10. Baltussen R, Paul Maria Jansen M, Bijlmakers L, Grutters J, Kluytmans A, Reuzel RP, et al. Value Assessment Frameworks for HTA Agencies: The Organization of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes. Value Heal. 2017;20(2):256–60.
11. Tony M, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Papastavros T, Oh P, et al. 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. 2011;11.
12. Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, Second Edition. Vol. 14, American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 1998. p. 243.
13. Edlin R, McCabe C, Hulme C, Hall P, Wright J. Cost Effectiveness Modelling for Health Technology Assessment. Cost Effectiveness Modelling for Health Technology Assessment. 2015.
14. Dhalla I, Laupacis A. Moving from opacity to transparency in pharmaceutical policy. Vol. 178, CMAJ. 2008. p. 428–31.
15. Diaby V, Goeree R. How to use multi-criteria decision analysis methods for reimbursement decision-making in healthcare: A step-by-step guide. Vol. 14, Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. 2014. p. 81–99.
16. Anderson P, Webb P, Groves S. Prioritisation of specialist health care services; not NICE, not easy but it can be done. Health Policy (New York). 2017;121(9):978–85.
17. Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Heal. 2012;15(8):1172–81.
18. Dodgson J, Spackman M, Pearman AD, Phillips LD. Multi-Criteria Analysis: a manual. 2009. 1–160 p.
19. Niekamp S, Bharadwaj UR, Sadhukhan J, Chryssanthopoulos MK. A multi-criteria decision support framework for sustainable asset management and challenges in its application. J Ind Prod Eng. 2015;32(1):23–36.
20. Marsh K, Lanitis T, Neasham D, Orfanos P, Caro J. Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: A review of the literature. Vol. 32, PharmacoEconomics. 2014. p. 345–65.
21. Aikhuele DO, Ighravwe DE, Akinyele D. Evaluation of Renewable Energy Technology Based on Reliability Attributes Using Hybrid Fuzzy Dynamic Decision-Making Model. Technol Econ Smart Grids Sustain Energy. 2019;4(1).
22. Lessard C. Complexity and reflexivity: Two important issues for economic evaluation in health care. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(8):1754–65.
23. Becla L, Lunshof JE, Gurwitz D, Schulte In Den Bäumen T, Westerhoff H V., Lange BMH, et al. Health technology assessment in the era of personalized health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(2):118–26.
24. Simoens S. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Health technologies for rare diseases: does conventional HTA still apply? Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2014;14(3):315–7.
25. Broekhuizen H, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, van Til JA, Hummel JM, IJzerman MJ. A review and classification of approaches for dealing with uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis for healthcare decisions. Vol. 33, PharmacoEconomics. Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 445–55.
26. Mahapatra B. Information technology and Education. Sarup & Sons; 2005.
27. Ibáñez-Forés V, Bovea MD, Pérez-Belis V. A holistic review of applied methodologies for assessing and selecting the optimal technological alternative from a sustainability perspective. J Clean Prod. 2014;70:259–81.
28. Osterwalder L, Johnson CA, Yang H, Johnston RB. Multi-criteria assessment of community-based fluoride-removal technologies for rural Ethiopia. Sci Total Environ. 2014;488–489(1):532–8.
29. Garrido MV, Zentner A, Busse R. Health systems, health policy and health technology assessment. In: Health Technology Assessment and health policy-making in Europe. 2008. p. 53–78.
30. Longaray AA, Ensslin L, Munhoz P, Tondolo V, Quadro R, Dutra A, et al. A Systematic Literature Review Regarding the Use of Multicriteria Methods towards Development of Decision Support Systems in Health Management. In: Procedia Computer Science. 2016. p. 701–10.
31. Lee YC, James Chou C. Technology evaluation and selection of 3DIC integration using a three-stage fuzzy MCDM. Sustain. 2016;8(2).
32. Matheri AN, Mbohwa C, Belaid M, Seodigeng T, Ngila JC. Multi-criteria analysis of different technologies for the bioenergy recovery from ofmsw. In: Lecture Notes in Engineering and Computer Science. 2016.
33. Macuada CJ, Oddershede AM, Cordova FM. Multi-criteria decision model for assessing arsenic abatement technology in Chilean mining. In: 2016 6th International Conference on Computers Communications and Control, ICCCC 2016. 2016.
34. Scharfy D, Boccali N, Stucki M. Clean technologies in agriculture-How to prioritise measures? Sustain. 2017;9(8).
35. Campisi D, Gitto S, Morea D. An evaluation of energy and economic efficiency in residential buildings sector: A multi-criteria analisys on an Italian case study. Int J Energy Econ Policy. 2018;8(3).
36. Shaaban M, Scheffran J, Böhner J, Elsobki MS. Sustainability assessment of electricity generation technologies in Egypt using multi-criteria decision analysis. Energies. 2018;11(5).
37. Al-Alawi BM, Coker AD. Multi-criteria decision support system with negotiation process for vehicle technology selection. Energy. 2018;157.
38. Glaize A, Duenas A, Di Martinelly C, Fagnot I. Healthcare decision-making applications using multicriteria decision analysis: A scoping review. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal. 2019;26(1–2):62–83.
39. Banham D, Lynch J, Karnon J. An equity-Effectiveness framework linking health programs and healthy life expectancy. Aust J Prim Health. 2011;17(4):309–19.
40. Konchak C, Prasad K. Incorporating social network effects into cost-effectiveness analysis: A methodological contribution with application to obesity prevention. BMJ Open. 2012;2(6).
41. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking – the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8(1):270.
42. Goetghebeur MM, Cellier MS. Can reflective multicriteria be the new paradigm for healthcare decision-making? the EVIDEM journey. Vol. 16, Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation. BioMed Central Ltd.; 2018.
43. Miot J, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Goetghebeur MM. Field testing of a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for coverage of a screening test for cervical cancer in South Africa. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012;10.
44. Radaelli G, Lettieri E, Masella C, Merlino L, Strada A, Tringali M, et al. Policies Implementation of Eunethta Core Model R in Lombardia: The VTS Framework Politecnico di Milano. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:105–12.
45. Danner M, Hummel JM, Volz F, Van Manen JG, Wiegard B, Bastian H, et al. Integrating patients’ views into health technology assessment: Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a method to elicit patient preferences Charalabos-Markos Dintsios Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(4).
46. Youngkong S, Teerawattananon Y, Tantivess S, Baltussen R. Multi-criteria decision analysis for setting priorities on HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand. Heal Res Policy Syst. 2012;10.
47. Currie WL. TEMPEST: An integrative model for health technology assessment. Heal Policy Technol. 2012;1(1):35–49.
48. Baltussen R, Mikkelsen E, Tromp N, Hurtig AK, Byskov J, Olsen Ø, et al. Balancing efficiency, equity and feasibility of HIV treatment in South Africa - development of programmatic guidance. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2013;11(1).
49. Tsiachristas A. Payment and economic evaluation of integrated care. Int J Integr Care. 2015;15(2).
50. Postmus D, Tervonen T, Van Valkenhoef G, Hillege HL, Buskens E. A multi-criteria decision analysis perspective on the health economic evaluation of medical interventions. Eur J Heal Econ. 2014;15(7):709–16.
51. Youngkong S. Application of HTA research on policy decision-making. J Med Assoc Thai. 2014;97 Suppl 5:S119-26.
52. Endrei D, Molics B, Ágoston I. Multicriteria decision analysis in the reimbursement of new medical technologies: Real-world experiences from Hungary. Vol. 17, Value in Health. 2014. p. 487–9.
53. Irwin J, Peacock S. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: An emerging alternative for assessing the value of orphan medicinal products. Regul Rapp. 2015;12(1):12–5.
54. Castro Jaramillo HE, Goetghebeur M, Moreno-Mattar O. Testing multi-criteria decision analysis for more transparent resource-allocation decision making in Colombia. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32(4):307–14.
55. Martelli N, Hansen P, van den Brink H, Boudard A, Cordonnier AL, Devaux C, et al. 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. 2016;59.
56. Kolasa K, Zwolinski KM, Kalo Z, Hermanowski T. Potential impact of the implementation of multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) on the Polish pricing and reimbursement process of orphan drugs. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2016;11(1).
57. Mobinizadeh M, Raeissi P, Nasiripour AA, Olyaeemanesh A, Tabibi SJ. A model for priority setting of health technology assessment: the experience of AHP-TOPSIS combination approach. Daru. 2016;24:10.
58. Schmitz S, McCullagh L, Adams R, Barry M, Walsh C. Identifying and Revealing the Importance of Decision-Making Criteria for Health Technology Assessment: A Retrospective Analysis of Reimbursement Recommendations in Ireland. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(9).
59. Ottardi C, Damonti A, Porazzi E, Foglia E, Ferrario L, Villa T, et al. A comparative analysis of a disposable and a reusable pedicle screw instrument kit for lumbar arthrodesis: integrating HTA and MCDA. Health Econ Rev. 2017;7(1).
60. Angelis A, Montibeller G, Hochhauser D, Kanavos P. Multiple criteria decision analysis in the context of health technology assessment: A simulation exercise on metastatic colorectal cancer with multiple stakeholders in the English setting. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017;17(1).
61. Howard S, Scott IA, Ju H, McQueen L, Scuffham PA. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) for health technology assessment: The Queensland Health experience. Aust Heal Rev. 2019;43(5).
62. Lasorsa I, Padoano E, Marceglia S, Accardo A. Multi-criteria decision analysis for the assessment of non-clinical hospital services: Methodology and case study. Oper Res Heal Care. 2019;23.
63. Phillips LD, Bana E Costa CA. Transparent prioritisation, budgeting and resource allocation with multi-criteria decision analysis and decision conferencing. Ann Oper Res. 2007;154(1):51–68.
64. Williams, A. What Could be Nicer than NICE? Monographs. 2004;
65. Schlander M. The use of cost-effectiveness by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): No(t yet an) exemplar of a deliberative process. Vol. 34, Journal of Medical Ethics. 2008. p. 534–9.
66. Nord E, Daniels N, Kamlet M. QALYs: Some challenges. In: Value in Health. 2009.
67. Birch S, Gafni A. Being naughty about NICE? Questioning the methods used to maximize health gains from NHS resources. Vol. 2, Health Economics, Policy and Law. 2007. p. 217–21.
68. Lakdawalla DN, Doshi JA, Garrison LP, Phelps CE, Basu A, Danzon PM. Defining Elements of Value in Health Care—A Health Economics Approach: An ISPOR Special Task Force Report [3]. Value Heal. 2018;21(2):131–9.
69. Phelps CE, Lakdawalla DN, Basu A, Drummond MF, Towse A, Danzon PM. Approaches to Aggregation and Decision Making—A Health Economics Approach: An ISPOR Special Task Force Report [5]. Value Heal. 2018;21(2):146–54.
70. Garrison LP, Neumann PJ, Willke RJ. Reflections on the ISPOR special task force on U.S. Value frameworks: Implications of a health economics approach for managed care pharmacy. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2019;25(11):1185–90.
71. Marsh K, Goetghebeur M, Thokala P, Baltussen R. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Support Healthcare Decisions. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Support Healthcare Decisions. Springer; 2017. 1–139 p.
72. Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kalo Z, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making - An introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Heal. 2016;19(1):1–13.
73. Tanios N, Wagner M, Tony M, Baltussen R, Van Til J, Rindress D, et al. Which Criteria Are Considered in Healthcare Decisions? Insights from an International Survey of Policy and Clinical Decision Makers and the International Task Force on Decision Criteria *. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:456–65.
74. Goodman C. HTA 101: Introduction to Health Technology Assessment. Bethesda: US National Library of Medicine; 2014.
75. Daniels N, Sabin JE. Setting limits fairly: learning to share resources for health. Choice Rev Online. 2008;46(03):46-1513-46–1513.
76. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Samaha D, O’Neil W, Badgley D, Castro-Jaramillo H, et al. Exploring values of health technology assessment agencies using reflective multicriteria and rare disease case. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33(4):504–20.
77. Oliveira MD, Mataloto I, Kanavos P. Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art. Eur J Heal Econ. 2019;20(6).
78. Youngkong S, Tromp N, Chitama D. The EVIDEM framework and its usefulness for priority setting across a broad range of health interventions. Vol. 9, Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation. 2011.
79. Guindo LA, Wagner M, Baltussen R, Rindress D, van Til J, Kind P, et al. From efficacy to equity: Literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012;10(1):9.
80. Whitty JA, Lancsar E, Rixon K, Golenko X, Ratcliffe J. A Systematic Review of Stated Preference Studies Reporting Public Preferences for Healthcare Priority Setting. Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2014;7(4):365–86.
81. Gu Y, Lancsar E, Ghijben P, Butler JRG, Donaldson C. Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: A systematic review of what counts and to what extent. Soc Sci Med. 2015;146:41–52.
82. Cromwell I, Peacock SJ, Mitton C. ‘Real-world’ health care priority setting using explicit decision criteria: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15(1):164.
83. Bilcke J, Beutels P, Brisson M, Jit M. Accounting for methodological, structural, and parameter uncertainty in decision-analytic models: A practical guide. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(4).
84. Moreno-Calderón A, Tong TS, Thokala P. Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Software in Healthcare Priority Setting: A Systematic Review. Vol. 38, PharmacoEconomics. 2020.
85. Kapiriri L, Razavi D. How have systematic priority setting approaches influenced policy making? A synthesis of the current literature. Vol. 121, Health Policy. 2017. p. 937–46.
86. Salo A, Hämäläinen RP. Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Group Decision Processes. In: Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010. p. 269–83.
87. Roy B. Paradigms and challenges. Int Ser Oper Res Manag Sci. 2016;233:19–39.
88. Belton V, Stewart T. Problem structuring and multiple criteria decision analysis. In: International Series in Operations Research and Management Science. Springer New York LLC; 2010. p. 209–39.
89. Phillips LD. Best practice for MCDA in healthcare. In: Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Support Healthcare Decisions. Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 311–29.
90. Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2019). Cochrane. 2019;
91. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
92. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ WV, editor. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd Editio. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons; 2019.
93. Wilson MC. The mathematics of voting and elections. ACM SIGACT News. 2010;41(3):34.
94. Merrill S, Taylor AD. Mathematics and Politics: Strategy, Voting, Power and Proof. Am Math Mon. 1997;104(1):82.
95. Wallis WD. The mathematics of elections and voting. The Mathematics of Elections and Voting. Springer International Publishing; 2014. 1–96 p.
96. El-Helaly S. The mathematics of voting and apportionment: an introduction. Washington, D.C.: Springer International Publishing; 2019.
97. P. YH. Condorcet’s Theory of Voting. Am Polit Sci Rev. 1988;82(4):1231–44.
98. Schulze M. The Schulze Method of Voting. 2018;
99. Maurice Pollack. The Maximum Capacity through a Network. Oper Res. 1960;8:733–6.
100. Schulze M. A new monotonic, clone-independent, reversal symmetric, and condorcet-consistent single-winner election method. Soc Choice Welfare. 2011;36(2):267–303.
101. Saari DG, Merlin VR. The Copeland method. Econ Theory. 1996;8(1):51–76.
102. McCabe-Dansted JC, Pritchard G, Slinko A. Approximability of Dodgson’s rule. Soc Choice Welfare. 2008;31(2):311–30.
103. Dodgson C. A method of taking votes on more than two issues. Repr Black. 1958;224–34.
104. Levin J, Nalebuff B. An Introduction to Vote-Counting Schemes. J Econ Perspect. 1995;9(1):3–26.
105. Wu J. votesys: Voting Systems, Instant-Runoff Voting, Borda Method, Various Condorcet Methods. 2018.
106. Brazdil PB, Soares C. A comparison of ranking methods for classification algorithm selection. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg; 2000. p. 63–75.
107. Tarsitano A. Comparing the Effectiveness of Rank Correlation Statistics. 2009;1–25.
108. Ghijben P, Gu Y, Lancsar E, Zavarsek S. Revealed and Stated Preferences of Decision Makers for Priority Setting in Health Technology Assessment: A Systematic Review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(3):323–40.
109. Mohamadi E, Tabatabaei SM, Olyaeemanesh A, Sagha SF, Zanganeh M, Davari M, et al. Coverage decision-making for orthopedics interventions in the health transformation program in iran: A multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Shiraz E Med J. 2016;17(12).
110. Skedgel C. The prioritization preferences of pan-canadian oncology drug review members and the canadian public: A stated-preferences comparison. Vol. 23, Current Oncology. 2016. p. 322–8.
111. Severin F, Schmidtke J, Mühlbacher A, Rogowski WH. Eliciting preferences for priority setting in genetic testing: A pilot study comparing best-worst scaling and discrete-choice experiments. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21(11):1202–8.
112. Severin F, Hess W, Schmidtke J, Mühlbacher A, Rogowski W. Value judgments for priority setting criteria in genetic testing: A discrete choice experiment. Health Policy (New York). 2015;119(2):164–73.
113. Luyten J, Kessels R, Goos P, Beutels P. Public preferences for prioritizing preventive and curative health care interventions: A discrete choice experiment. Value Heal. 2015;18(2):224–33.
114. Defechereux T, Paolucci F, Mirelman A, Youngkong S, Botten G, Hagen TP, et al. Health care priority setting in Norway a multicriteria decision analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(1):39.
115. Green C, Gerard K. Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: A stated preference discrete choice experiment. Vol. 18, Health Economics. 2009. p. 951–76.
116. Kwon SH, Park SK, Byun JH, Lee EK. Eliciting societal preferences of reimbursement decision criteria for anti cancer drugs in South Korea. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2017;17(4):411–9.
117. Aenishaenslin C, Gern L, Michel P, Ravel A, Hongoh V, Waaub JP, et al. Adaptation and evaluation of a multi-criteria decision analysis model for Lyme disease prevention. PLoS One. 2015;10(8).
118. Golan O, Hansen P, Kaplan G, Tal O. Health technology prioritization: Which criteria for prioritizing new technologies and what are their relative weights? Health Policy (New York). 2011;102(2–3):126–35.
119. Golan O, Hansen P. Which health technologies should be funded? A prioritization framework based explicitly on value for money. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2012;1(1):44.
120. Shmueli A. Do the equity-efficiency preferences of the Israeli Basket Committee match those of Israeli health policy makers? Isr J Health Policy Res. 2017;6(1):20.
121. Sullivan T, Hansen P. Determining Criteria and Weights for Prioritizing Health Technologies Based on the Preferences of the General Population: A New Zealand Pilot Study. Value Heal. 2017;20(4):679–86.
122. Paolucci F, Mentzakis E, Defechereux T, Niessen LW. Equity and efficiency preferences of health policy makers in China - A stated preference analysis. Health Policy Plan. 2015;30(8):1059–66.
123. Marsh K, Dolan P, Kempster J, Lugon M. Prioritizing investments in public health: A multi-criteria decision analysis. J Public Heal (United Kingdom). 2013;35(3):460–6.
124. Tanios N, Wagner M, Tony M, Baltussen R, Van Til J, Rindress D, et al. Which criteria are considered in healthcare decisions? Insights from an international survey of policy and clinical decision makers. Vol. 29, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. Cambridge University Press; 2013. p. 456–65.
125. Gurtner S. Making the right decisions about new technologies: A perspective on criteria and preferences in hospitals. Health Care Manage Rev. 2014;39(3):245–54.
126. Mobinizadeh M, Raeissi P, Nasiripour AA, Olyaeemanesh A, Tabibi SJ. The health systems’ priority setting criteria for selecting health technologies: A systematic review of the current evidence. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2016;30(1).
127. Angell B, Pares J, Mooney G. Implementing priority setting frameworks: Insights from leading researchers. Health Policy (New York). 2016;120(12):1389–94.
128. Kaur G, Prinja S, Lakshmi PVM, Downey L, Sharma D, Teerawattananon Y. Criteria Used for Priority-Setting for Public Health Resource Allocation in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2019;35(6).
129. Luce BR, Drummond M, Jönsson B, Neumann PJ, Schwartz JS, Siebert U, et al. EBM, HTA, and CER: Clearing the confusion. Vol. 88, Milbank Quarterly. Milbank Memorial Fund; 2010. p. 256–76.
130. Kristensen FB, Nielsen CP, Chase D, Lampe K, Lee-Robin SH, Marjukka M. What is health technology assessment? In: Health Technology Assessment and health policy-making in Europe. 2008. p. 31–52.
131. Buglioli Bonilla M, Pérez Galán A. Evaluación de tecnologías de salud. Rev Médica del Uruguay. 2002;18(1):27–35.
132. Battista RN. Innovation and diffusion of health-related technologies a conceptual framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1989;5(2):227–48.
133. Sampietro-Colom L, Martin J. Hospital-based health technology assessment: The next frontier. In: Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment: The Next Frontier for Health Technology Assessment. Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 3–11.
134. Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Jönsson B, Luce BR, Neumann PJ, Siebert U, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Vol. 24, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2008. p. 244–58.
135. Köksalan M, Wallenius J, Zionts S. Multiple criteria decision making: From early history to the 21st century. Multiple Criteria Decision Making: From Early History to the 21st Century. World Scientific; 2011. 1–198 p.
136. Ishizaka A, Nemery P. Multi-criteria decision analysis: methods and software. John Wiley & Sons; 2013.
137. Belton V, Stewart TJ. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: an integrated approach. Springer Science and Business Media LLC; 2002.
138. Regier DA, Peacock S. Theoretical foundations of MCDA. In: Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Support Healthcare Decisions. Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 9–28.
139. Kilgour DM, Chen Y, Hipel KW. Multiple criteria approaches to group decision and negotiation. In: International Series in Operations Research and Management Science. Springer New York LLC; 2010. p. 317–38.
140. Roy B. Paradigms and challenges. In: Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. New York: Springer Science and Business Media LLC; 2016. p. 19–43.
141. Nurmi H, Meskanen T. Voting Paradoxes and MCDM. Gr Decis Negot. 2000;9(4):297–313.
142. Greco S, Ehrgott M, Figueira JR. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. 2nd ed. New York: Springer Verlag; 2016. 1347 p.
143. Daniels N, Porteny T, Urritia J. Expanded HTA: Enhancing fairness and legitimacy. Vol. 5, International Journal of Health Policy and Management. Kerman University of Medical Sciences; 2016. p. 1–3.
144. Zawodnik A, Niewada M. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for Health Care Decision Making-overview of guidelines. Authors. jhpor.com. :2018–29.
145. Marsh K, Ijzerman M, Thokala P, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kaló Z, et al. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making - Emerging Good Practices: Report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Heal. 2016;19(2):125–37.
146. Banville C, Landry M, Martel J, Boulaire C. A stakeholder approach to MCDA. Syst Res Behav Sci. 1998;15(1):15–32.
147. Thokala P, Madhavan G. Stakeholder involvement in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Vol. 16, Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation. BioMed Central Ltd.; 2018.
148. Busse R, Orvain J, Velasco M, Perleth M, Drummond M, G¨rtner F, et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18(2):361–422.
149. Zardari NH, Ahmed K, Shirazi SM, Yusop Z Bin. Weighting Methods and their Effects on Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model Outcomes in Water Resources Management. Springer International Publishing; 2015. 166 p.
150. Mullen PM. Quatifying priorities in healthcare: Transparency or illusion? Heal Serv Manag Res. 2004;17(1):47–58.
151. Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Broekhuizen H, Van Til J. Dealing with uncertainty in the analysis and reporting of MCDA. In: Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Support Healthcare Decisions. Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 67–85.
152. Scholl A, Manthey L, Helm R, Steiner M. Solving multiattribute design problems with analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis: An empirical comparison. In: European Journal of Operational Research. 2005. p. 760–77.
153. Behzadian M, Khanmohammadi Otaghsara S, Yazdani M, Ignatius J. A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Vol. 39, Expert Systems with Applications. 2012. p. 13051–69.
154. Kaya İ, Çolak M, Terzi F. A comprehensive review of fuzzy multi criteria decision making methodologies for energy policy making. Vol. 24, Energy Strategy Reviews. Elsevier Ltd; 2019. p. 207–28.
155. Razmak J, Aouni B. Decision Support System and Multi-Criteria Decision Aid: A State of the Art and Perspectives. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal. 2015;22(1–2):101–17.
156. Velasquez M, Hester P. An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. Int J Oper Res. 2013;10(2):56–66.
157. Podvezko V. The Comparative Analysis of MCDA Methods SAW and COPRAS. Inz Ekon Econ. 2011;22(2):134–46.
158. Marsh K, Thokala P, Mühlbacher A, Lanitis T. Incorporating preferences and priorities into MCDA: Selecting an appropriate scoring and weighting technique. In: Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Support Healthcare Decisions. Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 47–66.
159. Barron FH, Winterfeldt D von, Fischer GW. Empirical and theoretical relationships between value and utility functions. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1984;56(1–3):233–44.
160. von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W. Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press; 1986. 604 p.
161. Mustajoki J, Hämäläinen RP, Salo A. Decision support by interval SMART / SWING - methods to incorporate uncertainty into multiattribute analysis. Decis Sci. 2001;36(2):317– 339.
162. Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs. Cambridge University Press; 1993.
163. Guitouni A, Martel JM. Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. Eur J Oper Res. 1998;109(2):501–21.
164. Brunelli M. Introduction to the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Springer International Publishing; 2015. 88 p.
165. Saaty TL. Decision making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Sci Iran. 2002;9(3):215–29.
166. Bhushan N, Rai K. Strategic decision making: applying the analytic hierarchy process. Springer Science and Business Media; 2007.
167. Hossain MF, Adnan ZH, Hasin MAA. Improvement in weighting assignment process in analytic hierarchy process by introducing suggestion matrix and Likert scale. Int J Supply Chain Manag. 2014;3(4):91–5.
168. Liberatore MJ, Nydick RL. The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: A literature review. Eur J Oper Res. 2008;189(1).
169. Dyer JS. Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Manage Sci. 1990;36(3):249–58.
170. Han S. How can we handle too many criteria / alternatives?: A study on AHP structural design. NUCB J Econ Inf Sci. 2016;2:103–12.
171. Wedley WC. Fewer comparisons-efficiency via sufficient redundancy. 2009.
172. Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Mühlbacher A, Regier DA, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: Report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Heal. 2013;16(1):3–13.
173. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Deleting “irrational” responses from discrete choice experiments: A case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ. 2006;15(8):797–811.
174. Severin F, Hess W, Schmidtke J, Mühlbacher A, Rogowski W. Value judgments for priority setting criteria in genetic testing: A discrete choice experiment. Health Policy (New York). 2015;119(2):164–73.
175. Bartés AP. Métodos estadísticos. Control y mejora de la calidad. Iniciativa Digital Politècnica; 2005. 376 p.
176. ChoiceMetrics. Ngene 1.2 - User Manual & Reference Guide. 2018. 241 p.
177. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied choice analysis: a primer. Applied Choice Analysis. Cambridge University Press; 2015. 1–1188 p.
178. WHO. How to Conduct a Discrete Choice Experiment for Health Workforce Recruitment and Retention in Remote and Rural Areas: A user guide with case studies. World Health Organization. World Health Organization; 2012. 85 p.
179. De Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: A review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.
180. Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob EW. Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature. Vol. 32, PharmacoEconomics. Springer International Publishing; 2014. p. 883–902.
181. Lancsar E, Fiebig DG, Hole AR. Discrete Choice Experiments: A Guide to Model Specification, Estimation and Software. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(7):697–716.
182. Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Prior T, Marshall DA, Cunningham C, et al. Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Heal. 2016;19(4):300–15.
183. Ijzerman MJ, Van Til JA, Bridges JFP. A comparison of analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis methods in assessing treatment alternatives for stroke rehabilitation. Patient. 2012;5(1):45–56.
184. Green PE, Krieger AM, Wind Y. Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects. Interfaces (Providence). 2001;31(3_supplement):S56–73.
185. Kallas Z, Lambarraa F, Gil JM. A stated preference analysis comparing the Analytical Hierarchy Process versus Choice Experiments. Food Qual Prefer. 2011;22(2):181–92.
186. Tockhorn-Heidenreich A, Ryan M, Hernández R. Discrete Choice Experiments. In: Patient Involvement in Health Technology Assessment. Springer Singapore; 2017. p. 121–33.
187. Louviere JJ, Lancsar E. Choice experiments in health: The good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Heal Econ Policy Law. 2009;4(4):527–46.
188. Tervonen T, Gelhorn H, Sri Bhashyam S, Poon JL, Gries KS, Rentz A, et al. MCDA swing weighting and discrete choice experiments for elicitation of patient benefit-risk preferences: a critical assessment. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017;26(12):1483–91.
189. Helm R, Scholl A, Manthey L, Steiner M. Measuring customer preferences in new product development: comparing compositional and decompositional methods. Int J Prod Dev. 2004;1(1):12–29.
190. Danesh D, Ryan MJ, Abbasi A. A systematic comparison of multi-criteria decision making methods for the improvement of project portfolio management in complex organisations. Int J Manag Decis Mak. 2017;16(3):280–320.
191. Montis A De, Toro P De, Droste-franke B, Omann I, Stagl S. Criteria for quality assessment of MCDA methods. 3rd Bienn Conf Eur Soc Ecol Econ. 2000;3–6.
192. Wątróbski J, Jankowski J, Ziemba P, Karczmarczyk A, Zioło M. Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection. Omega (United Kingdom). 2019;86:107–24.
193. Belton V, Pictet J. A framework for group decision using a mcda model: Sharing, aggregating or comparing individual information? J Decis Syst. 1997;6(3):283–303.
194. Grošelj P, Zadnik Stirn L, Ayrilmis N, Kuzman MK. Comparison of some aggregation techniques using group analytic hierarchy process. Expert Syst Appl. 2015;42(4):2198–204.
195. Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy and analytic network processes for the measurement of intangible criteria and for decision-making. In: Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. New York: Springer Science and Business Media LLC; 2016. p. 363–419.
196. Zhou P, Ang BW. Comparing MCDA aggregation methods in constructing composite indicators using the Shannon-Spearman measure. Soc Indic Res. 2009;94(1):83–96.
197. Grošelj P, Zadnik Stirn L, Ayrilmis N, Kuzman MK. Comparison of some aggregation techniques using group analytic hierarchy process. Expert Syst Appl. 2015;42(4):2198–204.
198. Phelps CE, Lakdawalla DN, Basu A, Drummond MF, Towse A, Danzon PM. Approaches to Aggregation and Decision Making—A Health Economics Approach: An ISPOR Special Task Force Report [5]. Value Heal. 2018;21(2):146–54.
199. Marsh K, Thokala P, Youngkong S, Chalkidou K. Incorporating MCDA into HTA: Challenges and potential solutions, with a focus on lower income settings. Vol. 16, Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation. BioMed Central Ltd.; 2018. p. 43.
200. Centro de pensamiento, Medicamentos información y poder. Determinación del precio de nuevas tecnologías considerando su aporte terapéutico. Bogotá, Colombia; 2016.
201. Airoldi M, Morton A, Smith J, Bevan G, Airoldi M, Bevan G, et al. Healthcare prioritisation at the local level: a socio-technical approach. Priority setting for population health working paper (7). London, UK; 2011.
202. IETS. Manual para la elaboración de análisis de impacto presupuestal. Bogotá, Colombia; 2014.
203. Scott J. Rational choice theory. In: Understanding Contemporary Society: Theories of the Present. SAGE Publications Ltd; 2000.
204. EVIDEM. Evidence matrix: Instructions for synthesizing evidence and perform quality assessment of studies. 2017. Report No.: 10th Edition.
205. Zapf A, Castell S, Morawietz L, Karch A. Measuring inter-rater reliability for nominal data - Which coefficients and confidence intervals are appropriate? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1).
206. Gwet KL. Handbook of Inter-Rater Reliability: the definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters. 4th ed. Gaithersburg, MD: STATAXIS Publishing Company. Advanced Analytics; 2014. 197 p.
207. Landis JR, Koch GG. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159.
208. Castro H. Assessing the feasibility of conducting and using health technology assessment in Colombia: The case of severe haemophilia A. LSHTM Res Online. 2014;
209. Reina A, Mejía A. Manual para la elaboración de análisis de impacto presupuestal. 2014.
210. Deb K. Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. John Wiley & Sons; 2001.
211. Angelis A, Kanavos P. Value-Based Assessment of New Medical Technologies: Towards a Robust Methodological Framework for the Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis in the Context of Health Technology Assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(5):435–46.
212. Garcia-Hernandez A. A Note on the Validity and Reliability of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the Benefit–Risk Assessment of Medicines. Drug Saf. 2015;38(11).
213. Muhlbacher AC, Kaczynski A. Making Good Decisions in Healthcare with Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: The Use, Current Research and Future Development of MCDA. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(1):29–40.
214. Sengupta RN, Gupta A, Dutta J. Decision Sciences: Theory and Practice. Decision Sciences: Theory and Practice. 2016.
215. Baizyldayeva U, Vlasov O, Kuandykov AA, Akhmetov TB. Multi-Criteria decision support systems. Comparative analysis. Middle East J Sci Res. 2013;16(12).
216. Mustajoki J, Marttunen M. Comparison of multi-criteria decision analytical software for supporting environmental planning processes. Environ Model Softw. 2017;93.
217. Wohlgethan E. SupportingWeb Development Decisions by Comparing Three Major JavaScript Frameworks: Angular, React and Vue. js. 2018;
218. Levlin M. DOM benchmark comparison of the front-end JavaScript frameworks React, Angular, Vue, and Svelte. 2020.
219. You E. Comparison with Other Frameworks. 2020.
220. Rubio D. REST Services with Django. In: Beginning Django. Berkeley, CA: Apress; 2017. p. 549–66.
221. Challawala S. MySQL 8 for big data: effective data processing with MySQL 8, Hadoop, NoSQL APIs, and other big data tools. Packt; 2017.
222. Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social. Resolución Número 5521 de 2013. Colombia; 2013.
223. Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social. Desarrollo metodológico de los procesos generales de depuracion y ordenamiento de tecnologias en salud a evaluar, aumento de cobertura y supresión para efectos de la actualizacion del POS 2013. Bogotá, Colombia; 2013.
224. CRES. Criterios y categorías para la priorización de tecnologías en salud en el proceso de actualización del POS. Bogotá, Colombia; 2012.
225. IETS. Análisis de impacto presupuestal de donepezilo, galantamina y memantina para el tratamiento de la demencia por enfermedad de Alzheimer. Bogotá, Colombia; 2013.
226. Osorio DI, Ceballos M, Peña E. Análisis de impacto presupuestal de escitalopram, paroxetina, sertralina, fluoxetina, fluvoxamina y clomipramina como terapia de mantenimiento para pacientes adultos con trastorno obsesivo compulsivo en Colombia. Bogotá, Colombia; 2015.
227. Alba MJ, Gamboa OA, Cepeda MC. Análisis de impacto presupuestal de gabapentina y pregabalina como tratamiento de primera línea para adultos con dolor neuropático. Bogotá, Colombia; 2013.
228. Moreno M, MAnrique S. Análisis de impacto presupuestal de oxcarbazepina, lacosamida, vigabatrina, topiramato y levetiracetam para el tratamiento de pacientes con epilepsia refractaria. Bogotá, Colombia; 2013.
229. Salinas M, Velandia D. Análisis de impacto presupuestal del interferón ß1a, Interferón ß1a recombinante, interferón ß1b, acetato de glatiramer, natalizumab y fingolimod para la prevención de la progresión de la discapacidad en adultos con esclerosis múltiple de tipo recaída-rem. Bogotá, Colombia; 2013.
230. Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social. Metodología para el análisis de la información derivada de los procesos de participación ciudadana para la inclusión de nuevas tecnologías en el marco de la actualización integral del POS 2013. Bogotá, Colombia; 2013.
231. Frampton JE. Ocrelizumab: First Global Approval. Drugs. 2017;77(9).
232. Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ. 2007;26(1).
233. Abu Esba LC, Almodaimegh H, Alhammad A, Ferwana M, Yousef C, Ismail S. P&T Committee drug prioritization criteria: A tool developed by a saudi health care system. P T. 2018;43(5):293–300.
234. Diaby V, Laurier C, Lachaine J. A proposed framework for formulary listing in low-income countries: Incorporating key features from established drug benefit plans. Vol. 25, Pharmaceutical Medicine. 2011.
235. Mirelman A, Mentzakis E, Kinter E, Paolucci F, Fordham R, Ozawa S, et al. Decision-making criteria among national policymakers in five countries: a discrete choice experiment eliciting relative preferences for equity and efficiency. Value Health. 2012;15(3):534–9.
236. Diaby V, Lachaine J. An application of a proposed framework for formulary listing in low-income countries: The case of Côte dIvoire. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(6).
237. Yazdani S, Jadidfard MP. Developing a decision support system to link health technology assessment (HTA) reports to the health system policies in Iran. Health Policy Plan. 2017;32(4). | |
