Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 123–124 | Cite as

Comment on: “Does MCDA Trump CEA?”

  • Aris AngelisEmail author
  • Panos Kanavos
Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

We read the article by Campillo-Artero et al. [1] with great interest. The article focuses on the use of multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in the context of health technology assessment (HTA), outlining a number of issues perceived as limitations in relation to its use. Overall, we agree with the authors that a number of challenges remain, both methodological and policy-related, that need to be addressed for MCDA to be effectively applied in HTA and policy-making. These include ensuring that the value models are in alignment with decision science theory and that both methods and results are fit-for-purpose for HTA to serve the needs of decision-makers.

In their article, the authors offer constructive critique to the Advance Value Framework (AVF) we have developed based on MCDA principles and its encompassing generic value tree, the Advance Value Tree (AVT), which provides the hierarchical structure of evaluation criteria [2]. While we are delighted that our work...


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that no funding was received in connection with this letter. Aris Angelis and Panos Kanavos declare no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Campillo-Artero C, Puig-Junoy J, Culyer AJ. Does MCDA trump CEA? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2018;16(2):147–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Angelis A, Kanavos P. Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in health technology assessment and beyond: the advance value framework. Soc Sci Med. 2017;188:137–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W. Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1986.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Health Policy and LSE HealthLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonUK

Personalised recommendations