Vendor evaluation platform for acquisition of medical equipment based on multi-criteria decision-making approach

The purchase of medical equipment is a critical issue that should be planned properly. The selection of the most appropriate vendor impacts time, effort, and expenses. Therefore, the challenge is to strike a balance between the available budget and the required equipment. The study aims to select th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inScientific reports Vol. 13; no. 1; p. 12746
Main Authors Saleh, Neven, Gaber, Mohamed N., Eldosoky, Mohamed A., Soliman, Ahmed M.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published London Nature Publishing Group UK 07.08.2023
Nature Publishing Group
Nature Portfolio
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:The purchase of medical equipment is a critical issue that should be planned properly. The selection of the most appropriate vendor impacts time, effort, and expenses. Therefore, the challenge is to strike a balance between the available budget and the required equipment. The study aims to select the best vendor for supplying medical equipment based on Emergency Care Research Institute (ECRI) standards. The multi-criteria decision-making approach has been adopted through three methods; Multi-Objective Optimization by Ratio Analysis (MOORA), Simple Additive Weighting (SAW), and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). The criteria of selection are divided into general, technical, and financial. The criteria are weighted using three methods: CRITIC, entropy, and expert judgment. The Vendor Evaluation Program for Medical Equipment (VEPME) is designed to automatically select the best vendor. Medical imaging equipment is selected to test the program by four modalities: X-ray equipment, CT, MRI, and ultrasound. The best scenario was given by the entropy-TOPSIS. As a result, this methodology was adopted by the program. The results demonstrate the robustness of the proposed methodology by comparing the VEPME output to expert judgment.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:2045-2322
2045-2322
DOI:10.1038/s41598-023-38902-3