Can decision analysis adequately represent clinical problems?

A well known decision analysis that is widely interpreted as proof that two decision alternatives are equivalent in all clinically meaningful respects is reanalyzed, indicating that the results of the original analysis have been widely misinterpreted.

Abstract

A major weakness of medical decision analysis has been the inability of the commonly used single attribute utility models to adequately represent clinical decision making situations. To illustrate this problem, I reanalyzed a well known decision analysis that is widely interpreted as proof that two decision alternatives are equivalent in all clinically meaningful respects. The reanalysis was based on a more representative decision model made possible by the use of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), a multiobjective decision making technique. The use of this model resulted in the identification of a clearly preferred alternative, indicating that the results of the original analysis have been widely misinterpreted. The degree to which a decision model represents clinical reality influences the correct interpretation of a decision analysis. Limited decision models can yield only limited conclusions. The use of more representative multiobjective decision models would improve the clinical usefulness of medical decision analyses.