Cargando…

Evaluating treatment modalities in chronic pain treatment by the multi-criteria decision making procedure

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is one of the most common complaints of cancer patients. There are many pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment modalities used for the treatment of pain. Nonetheless, non-pharmacological interventions are preferred because of potential side effects in cases resist...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sir, Ender, Batur Sir, Gül Didem
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6794880/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31615483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-019-0925-6
_version_ 1783459385544015872
author Sir, Ender
Batur Sir, Gül Didem
author_facet Sir, Ender
Batur Sir, Gül Didem
author_sort Sir, Ender
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is one of the most common complaints of cancer patients. There are many pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment modalities used for the treatment of pain. Nonetheless, non-pharmacological interventions are preferred because of potential side effects in cases resistant to medical therapy that require a dose increase or potent drug use. In most real-life situations, the decision on which technique to choose is based on the clinical but subjective decisions of the practitioners. This study aimed to find out the best non-pharmacological treatment option for patients with chronic cancer pain by following a rational and reasonable approach. METHODS: Since the evaluation of treatment options requires to make a comparison between a number of alternatives in the light of certain criteria, we utilize the order relation analysis (G1-method) which is a method for determining the weights based on the improved Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The method uses the relative importances on prioritizing the four criteria and eight sub-criteria defined by the experts of three pain physicians, one oncologist, and one oncologic surgeon. Four alternatives are then compared according to the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) using the verbal subjective judgments of the practitioners. RESULTS: Obtained results indicate that the general medical condition of the patient and the stage of the cancer are the essential factors in the selection of the treatment method. It is followed by the extent of the pain and the level of evidence, respectively. According to the evaluations performed, spinal port and splanchnic nerve radiofrequency thermocoagulation treatments are the first and second priority methods for pain treatment, respectively, compared to lumbar epidural catheter and celiac plexus block. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study emphasize the need to integrate critical criteria into the decision-making process objectively. This is the first study in which multi-criteria decision-making tools are used in the evaluation and selection of pain management methods in cancer patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6794880
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67948802019-10-21 Evaluating treatment modalities in chronic pain treatment by the multi-criteria decision making procedure Sir, Ender Batur Sir, Gül Didem BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Research Article BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is one of the most common complaints of cancer patients. There are many pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment modalities used for the treatment of pain. Nonetheless, non-pharmacological interventions are preferred because of potential side effects in cases resistant to medical therapy that require a dose increase or potent drug use. In most real-life situations, the decision on which technique to choose is based on the clinical but subjective decisions of the practitioners. This study aimed to find out the best non-pharmacological treatment option for patients with chronic cancer pain by following a rational and reasonable approach. METHODS: Since the evaluation of treatment options requires to make a comparison between a number of alternatives in the light of certain criteria, we utilize the order relation analysis (G1-method) which is a method for determining the weights based on the improved Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The method uses the relative importances on prioritizing the four criteria and eight sub-criteria defined by the experts of three pain physicians, one oncologist, and one oncologic surgeon. Four alternatives are then compared according to the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) using the verbal subjective judgments of the practitioners. RESULTS: Obtained results indicate that the general medical condition of the patient and the stage of the cancer are the essential factors in the selection of the treatment method. It is followed by the extent of the pain and the level of evidence, respectively. According to the evaluations performed, spinal port and splanchnic nerve radiofrequency thermocoagulation treatments are the first and second priority methods for pain treatment, respectively, compared to lumbar epidural catheter and celiac plexus block. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study emphasize the need to integrate critical criteria into the decision-making process objectively. This is the first study in which multi-criteria decision-making tools are used in the evaluation and selection of pain management methods in cancer patients. BioMed Central 2019-10-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6794880/ /pubmed/31615483 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-019-0925-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Sir, Ender
Batur Sir, Gül Didem
Evaluating treatment modalities in chronic pain treatment by the multi-criteria decision making procedure
title Evaluating treatment modalities in chronic pain treatment by the multi-criteria decision making procedure
title_full Evaluating treatment modalities in chronic pain treatment by the multi-criteria decision making procedure
title_fullStr Evaluating treatment modalities in chronic pain treatment by the multi-criteria decision making procedure
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating treatment modalities in chronic pain treatment by the multi-criteria decision making procedure
title_short Evaluating treatment modalities in chronic pain treatment by the multi-criteria decision making procedure
title_sort evaluating treatment modalities in chronic pain treatment by the multi-criteria decision making procedure
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6794880/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31615483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-019-0925-6
work_keys_str_mv AT sirender evaluatingtreatmentmodalitiesinchronicpaintreatmentbythemulticriteriadecisionmakingprocedure
AT batursirguldidem evaluatingtreatmentmodalitiesinchronicpaintreatmentbythemulticriteriadecisionmakingprocedure