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

Publisher: BioMed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101088682 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1472-6947 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 14726947 NLM ISO Abbreviation: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: London : BioMed Central, [2001-

Clinical Decision-Making* ; Pain Management*; Cancer Pain/*therapy ; Chronic Pain/*therapy; Chronic Pain/etiology ; Humans ; Pain Measurement ; Patient Selection

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.

Radiographics. 2011 Oct;31(6):1599-621. (PMID: 21997984)
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017 Jan 23;17(1):14. (PMID: 28114944)
Indian J Palliat Care. 2017 Jul-Sep;23(3):274-281. (PMID: 28827930)
Anesthesiology. 2001 Apr;94(4):561-5. (PMID: 11379673)
Pain Pract. 2010 Jan-Feb;10(1):1-17. (PMID: 19807874)
BMJ Open. 2016 Jun 20;6(6):e010364. (PMID: 27324708)
Oncol Lett. 2019 Mar;17(3):3362-3370. (PMID: 30867771)
Pain Physician. 2013 Mar-Apr;16(2):125-33. (PMID: 23511679)
Artif Intell Med. 2018 May;87:20-33. (PMID: 29606521)
Data Brief. 2018 Dec 12;22:639-642. (PMID: 30671511)
Int J Clin Pract. 2015 Apr;69(4):436-43. (PMID: 25311239)
F1000Res. 2013 Mar 28;2:96. (PMID: 24555051)
Appl Clin Inform. 2015 Feb 04;6(1):56-74. (PMID: 25848413)

Keywords: AHP; Chronic pain treatment; Multi-criteria decision making; TOPSIS; Treatment selection

Date Created: 20191017 Date Completed: 20200219 Latest Revision: 20231014

20240105

PMC6794880

10.1186/s12911-019-0925-6

31615483