Shape Consensus With EthixMed Multi-Criteria Analysis

Harness multidisciplinary, global expertise through structured, anonymised consensus processes that clarify complex questions, reduce uncertainty and support responsible, evidence‑informed decision‑making across life‑science programmes.

Contact Us

EthixMed combines evidence synthesis, expert consensus (including Delphi studies), and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA/MCDM) to support transparent and evidence-based decision-making. By integrating multiple sources of evidence into structured decision frameworks, we help organisations prioritise options, reduce uncertainty, and make defensible regulatory and strategic decisions.

a group of people in lab coats working in a lab

Why Expert Consensus & Decision Analysis Matter

Complex healthcare decisions often involve limited evidence, competing priorities, and diverse stakeholder perspectives. This is particularly true for rare diseases, advanced therapies, medical devices, and other emerging technologies, where uncertainty can delay funding, regulatory approval, market access, and strategic decision-making.

EthixMed combines Delphi consensus methodology with Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA/MCDM) to transform diverse evidence and expert opinion into transparent, structured, and defensible decisions. Our Delphi studies build independent expert consensus through anonymous, iterative feedback, while our MCDA frameworks systematically evaluate options across clinical, regulatory, ethical, economic, and implementation criteria. Drawing on expertise in research ethics, regulatory science, health economics, evidence synthesis, and stakeholder engagement, we deliver publication-ready consensus, robust decision frameworks, and actionable recommendations that support confident, evidence-based decision-making aligned with responsible innovation.

Our Decision Support Workflow

After defining the project objectives, you upload your background materials through our secure portal. We then define the decision question, scope, and key stakeholders before reviewing the available evidence and selecting the most appropriate methodology—Delphi, Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA/MCDM), or a combination of both. We design and deliver the project from expert recruitment and evidence synthesis to consensus building and decision analysis. Final deliverables may include consensus statements, evidence summaries, decision frameworks, prioritisation matrices, publication-ready reports, and practical recommendations. Most projects are completed within 4–8 weeks, depending on their scope and complexity.

Two scientists in protective gear analyzing test tubes in a laboratory setting.

Experts in Rare & Emerging‑Technology Consensus

Rare conditions and innovative technologies demand niche expertise. Our panellists include regulators, geneticists, biostatisticians, health‑economists, clinicians and patient advocates with lived and professional experience across ultrarare and complex conditions.

We balance geographic and demographic representation to ensure diverse perspectives are heard, and we brief contributors on culturally appropriate language. With experience drafting orphan‑drug submissions and participating in EU and US advisory boards, our team anticipates reviewer expectations—ensuring consensus outputs align with HTA evidence requirements and speak credibly to funders, policymakers and regulatory bodies.

Need Expert Consensus or Decision Support? Get Started Today.

We deliver transparent decision-making.

Contact Us