Skip to main content

Table 2 Evaluation of reporting quality

From: Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process in healthcare research: A systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting

Authors Year Decision goal, criteria (and alternatives) Number of participants Type of participants Decision Scale for pairwise comparisons Interview process Software CR Calculation of weights Sensitivity analysis Reported elements
Ajami S, Ketabi S [92] 2012 yes 3 hospitals E g 9–1–9 f2f Expert Choice® n/a EV, GA n/a (alt) 8
Bahadori M et al. [117] 2014 yes 48 E g 9–1–9 nominal group technique Expert Choice® 1 n/a n/a (alt) 8
Basoglu N et al. [69] 2012 yes 14 P ind n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a (alt) 4
Bi Y, Lai D, Yan H [45] 2010 yes n/a E n/a 1–9 f2f SPSS 0.1 EV n/a 6
Cabrera-Barona P et al. [50] 2015 yes 32 E n/a 9–1–9 n/a n/a 0.1 n/a n/a 5
Cancela J, Fico G, Arredondo Waldmeyer MT [51] 2015 yes 16 E ind + g 1–9 online BPMSG 0.1 n/a, median n/a 9
Chen L et al. [70] 2014 yes 102 C ind 1–5 online n/a 0.2 n/a n/a (alt) 7
Chung KP et al. [71] 2013 yes 66 E ind 9–1–9 email n/a 0.1 EV n/a (alt) 8
Danner M et al. [72] 2011 yes 19 (12P, 7E) E + P g 9–1–9 f2f (workshop) Expert Choice® <0.1 EV, GGM n/a 9
Diaz-Ledezma C et al. [107] 2014 yes 1 A n/a 9–1–9 n/a SuperDecisionsTM 0.1 n/a yes (alt) 7
Diaz-Ledezma C, Parvizi J [73] 2013 yes 1 A n/a 9–1–9 lit SuperDecisionsTM 0.1 n/a yes (alt) 8
Dolan JG et al. [25] 2013 yes 484 P ind 9–1–9 f2f Excel, Crystal Xcelsius, Expert Choice® 0.15 EV n/a (alt) 9
Dou L et al. [61] 2015 yes 40 E ind 1/9–1–9 delphi method Expert Choice 0.1 n/a n/a 8
Fang LF, Tung HH [104] 2010 yes 65 E ind n/a questionnaire SPSS n/a EV, GA n/a 7
Guariguata L, Whiting D [110] 2011 yes 10 E ind 5–1–5 questionnaire n/a n/a n/a, GA n/a (alt) 7
Hilgerink MP et al. [93] 2011 yes 7 E ind + g n/a f2f (discussion) Expert Choice® n/a EV, GGM yes (alt) 8
Hou D et al. [67] 2014 yes n/a E n/a n/a lit n/a 0.1 n/a n/a 4
Hsu HC et al. [90] 2010 yes n/a E ind 5–1–5 f2f MS Excel n/a EV, GGM n/a (alt) 7
Hsu JC, Tang DH, Lu CY [63] 2015 yes n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1
Hsu JC, Hsieh, C-Y, Yang Y-HK, Lu CY [65] 2015 yes n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a EV n/a (alt) 2
Hu H et al. [68] 2010 yes n/a E n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a, GGM n/a 3
Hummel JM et al. [94] 2012 yes 6 E ind 9–1–9 questionnaire n/a n/a EV, GGM n/a (alt) 7
Ijzerman MJ et al. [95] 2012 yes 86 E + P ind + g 9–1–9 ppq Expert Choice® n/a EV n/a (alt) 8
Jaberidoost M et al. [66] 2015 yes n/a E ind 1–9 questionnaire Expert Choice® n/a EV, GGM n/a 7
Joshi V et al. [74] 2011 yes 58 E ind 1–11 online n/a 0.1 n/a n/a 7
Joshi V et al. [20] 2014 yes 422 E ind 1–4 online own software 0.1 n/a n/a 8
Kadohira M [64] 2015 yes 313 E + C ind n/a workshop, email ASHtools.xls 0.15 n/a, GA n/a (alt) 8
Karagiannidis A et al. [46] 2010 yes n/a E g 1–9 n/a Expert Choice® 0.1 EV yes (alt) 8
Kitamura Y [47] 2010 yes 31 P ind 1–7 online n/a 0.3 EV n/a (alt) 7
Krishnamoorthy K, Mahalingam M [100] 2015 yes n/a n/a n/a 1/9–1–9 n/a Expert Choice® 0.1 EV yes (alt) 6
Kunasekaran V, Krishnamoorthy K [101] 2014 yes n/a n/a n/a 1/9–1–9 n/a Expert Choice® 0.1 n/a yes (alt) 5
Kuruoglu E et al. [98] 2015 yes 96 P ind 1–9 f2f Expert Choice® 0.1 n/a, median of judgments n/a 9
Lambooij MS, Hummel MJ [75] 2013 yes 66 E + P ind 9–1–9 online n/a 0.15 (in group) EV, GA n/a (alt) 8
Lee CW, Kwak NK [76] 2011 yes n/a E n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.1 EV yes (alt) 5
Lee WC et al. [52] 2015 yes 200 C n/a 1–9 n/a Matlab n/a n/a n/a (alt) 5
Li A-T, Lin J-W [77] 2014 yes 25 E ind 1–9 email Excel 0.1 n/a n/a 8
Li C, Yu C [78] 2013 yes n/a E n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a yes (alt) 3
Lin RH, Chuang CL [91] 2010 yes 5 E n/a 1–9 questionnaire Expert Choice® 0.1 EV, GGM n/a 8
Lu L et al. [53] 2015 yes n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SPSS n/a n/a yes 3
Maruthur NM et al. [111] 2015 yes 9 E ind “usual AHP scale” computer Expert Choice® 0.15 EV, GGM yes (alt) 10
Mok H-P et al. [85] 2014 yes n/a E n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.01 n/a n/a 3
Moslehi S, Atefi Manesh P, Sarabi Asiabar A [54] 2015 yes 5 E n/a 1–9 n/a K-Goepel Version 9.5.2012 0.072 n/a n/a 6
Mühlbacher AC et al. [55] 2015 yes 1283 P ind 9–1–9 online n/a 0.006, 0.005 EV n/a 8
Mühlbacher AC, Juhnke C, Kaczynski A [60] 2015 yes 24 P ind + g 9–1–(−9) group discussion n/a 0.1 EV, consensus n/a 8
Munoz DA, Nembhard HB, Kraschnewski Jennifer L [109] 2014 yes 1 A ind 1–9 n/a n/a 0.1 EV n/a 7
Olivieri A et al. [79] 2012 yes 7 E ind 1/9–1–9 questionnaire n/a n/a n/a, GGM n/a (alt) 7
Page K [80] 2012 yes 94 C ind 9–1–9 ppq SPSS average at 0.3 EV SD 10
Papadopoulos A et al. [56] 2015 yes 7 E ind 1–9 n/a n/a 0.1 EV, GGM yes (alt) 8
Pecchia L et al. [81] 2011 yes 63 E ind 5–1–5 online n/a 0.2 EV, WM n/a 8
Pecchia L et al. [26] 2013 yes 5 E ind 5–1–5 ppq n/a 0.1 EV n/a 8
Perseghin P et al. [96] 2014 yes 11 E g 1–9 email n/a n/a n/a, GA n/a 7
Petit J et al. [108] 2012 yes n/a A n/a 9–1–9 n/a n/a 0.1 EV n/a (alt) 5
Ramezanpour B et al. [57] 2015 yes 24 E g 1–9 n/a n/a 0.1 EV n/a 7
Reddy BP et al. [86] 2014 yes 8 E ind + g 1/9–1–9 workshop, email n/a “standard” EV, GGM and consensus yes (alt) 9
Riepe MW [99] 2015 yes 42 E ind 6–1–6 workshop SPSS, spreadsheet file 0.1 n/a n/a 8
Sharma PS et al. [82] 2011 yes 96 P ind 9–1–9 f2f, (computer) n/a n/a n/a one-way for hybrid (alt) 7
Shojaei P et al. [87] 2014 yes 30 E ind 9–1–1/9 f2f Expert Choice® 0.1 EV, GGM n/a (alt) 9
Smith J, Cook A, Packer C [48] 2010 yes 4 experienced horizon analysts E n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a (alt) 3
Šoltés V, Gavurová B [88] 2014 yes 16 E ind 1–9 n/a MS Excel 0.1 (for CI) EV n/a (alt) 8
Suner A et al. [83] 2012 yes 5 E ind 9–1–9 online Expert Choice® 0.1 EV n/a 9
Taghipour H et al. [49] 2014 yes 40 hospitals E g n/a n/a Expert Choice®, MS Excel 0.1 EV, WM n/a (alt) 7
Tu C et al. [89] 2014 yes 41 E ind 1–9 n/a n/a 0.1 EV, GA n/a (alt) 7
Uzoka FM et al. [97] 2011 yes 6 E ind 9–1–9 n/a n/a 0.2 EV, GA n/a 7
Velmurugan R et al. [102] 2011 yes n/a n/a n/a 9–1–9 n/a n/a 0.1 AN n/a (alt) 4
Wollmann D et al. [103] 2012 yes 400 C ind 9–1–9 n/a n/a procedure by Silvac n/a, GGM n/a (alt) 7
Xu X, Cao Y, Luan X [58] 2014 yes n/a E n/a 1–9 mobile phone app n/a n/a n/a n/a 4
Xu Y et al. [59] 2015 yes 954 P ind 1–4 email SAS 0.15 EV, arithmetic mean n/a (alt) 9
Zhang S et al. [106] 2015 yes n/a E n/a 1–5 n/a JMP10.0 n/a n/a n/a 4
Zhu Q et al. [62] 2014 yes 9 E ind 1–9 n/a n/a 0.1 EV, GA n/a 7
  1. P patients, C potential consumers, E Experts, n/a not applicable, ind individual, g group, online online or web-based questionnaire, f2f face-to-face interview, lit literature, quest questionnaire (not further defined), ppq paper-pencil questionnaire, email mailed questionnaire, CR accepted consistency ratio, EV Eigenvector method, GA group average, GGM group geometric mean, WM weighted means, AN additive normalization method, alt alternatives included in the study, SD standard deviation