Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Considerations for using data envelopment analy...

Electronic data

  • Considerations_Resub_Main

    Rights statement: This article is (c) Emerald Group Publishing and permission has been granted for this version to appear here. Emerald does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission from Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Accepted author manuscript, 402 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Considerations for using data envelopment analysis for the assessment of radiotherapy treatment plan quality

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published
Close
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>9/10/2017
<mark>Journal</mark>International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance
Issue number8
Volume30
Number of pages14
Pages (from-to)703-716
Publication StatusPublished
Early online date29/08/17
<mark>Original language</mark>English

Abstract

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is a widely used method in operations research for the benchmarking and empirical assessment of productive efficiency. We have previously applied DEA for treatment plan analysis and demonstrated its ability to determine relative plan quality, however considerations regarding the optimal use of DEA were not considered in that work. In the current work we have extended the complexity of the DEA modelling to include an increased number of measures of treatment plan quality as well investigating the best method of accounting for patient geometry. Forty-one IMRT prostate treatment plans were retrospectively analysed using an input-oriented variable returns to scale DEA method. The impacts of DEA weight restrictions were analysed with reference to the ability of DEA to differentiate plan performance at a level of clinical significance. Patient geometry significantly influences plan quality and alternative methods for considering geometry in the DEA model were investigated. In this work we identify how best to use DEA for the relative assessment of prostate treatment plan quality.

Bibliographic note

This article is (c) Emerald Group Publishing and permission has been granted for this version to appear here. Emerald does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission from Emerald Group Publishing Limited.