Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
IntroductionThe objective of this study was to present the use of the Problem, Objectives, Alternatives, Consequences, Trade-offs, Uncertainty, Risk, and Linked decisions (PrOACT-URL) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) frameworks as a methodological innovation with the potential to support decision-making in the process of incorporating and monitoring technologies in the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS).MethodsThe present is a case study that used these frameworks as a basis for the benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of chemotherapy treatment options for multiple myeloma (MM) in the context of a Brazilian public hospital.ResultsThe application of the PrOACT-URL was not sufficient to guide stakeholders in making decisions about the best treatment alternative for MM, making it necessary to complement the qualitative analysis with the MCDA. In general, comparing the average scores for the five treatment options, the overall survival result was higher in four of the five treatments available for MM. The results that presented the lowest score were the risk of thrombosis and the risk of neuropathy. The sensitivity analysis showed that, for most stakeholder groups (managers, academia and clinicians), the treatment with the highest total value in the ranking was treatment with cyclophosphamide, thalidomide and dexamethasone (CTD).ConclusionsThe present case study showed that cyclophosphamide, thalidomide and dexamethasone presented the best benefit-risk balance for the treatment of MM and highlights the importance of the complementarity of these two structured approaches for more transparent decision-making, with an expansion of the deliberative process and the incorporation of preferences from different stakeholders.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10781552251374555 | DOI Listing |