ArticleJournal of healthcare engineering2020
Evaluation of the COVID-19 Pandemic Intervention Strategies with Hesitant F-AHP.
Article in Journal of healthcare engineering, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Group decision making in the analytic hierarchy process by hesitant fuzzy numbers.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- The Early Warning Mechanism of Public Health Emergencies Through Whistleblowing: A Perspective Based on Considering the Uncertainty of Risk Perception.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2023Article
- Are psychological status and trust in information related to vaccine hesitancy during COVID-19 pandemic? A latent class and mediation analyses in Italy.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2022Article
- Rise of multiattribute decision-making in combating COVID-19: A systematic review of the state-of-the-art literature.International journal of intelligent systems · 2022Article
- Ten GIS-Based Solutions for Managing and Controlling COVID-19 Pandemic Outbreak.SN computer science · 2022Review
- Multi-criteria decision-making for coronavirus disease 2019 applications: a theoretical analysis review.Artificial intelligence review · 2022Article
- Fermatean fuzzy set extensions of SAW, ARAS, and VIKOR with applications in COVID-19 testing laboratory selection problem.Expert systems · 2021Article
- Article
- Long-Time Analysis of a Time-Dependent SUC Epidemic Model for the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Article
- Assessing the Robustness of a Factory Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Fuzzy Collaborative Intelligence Approach.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, a hesitant fuzzy AHP method is presented to help decision makers (DMs), especially policymakers, governors, and physicians, evaluate the importance of intervention strategy alternatives applied by various countries for the COVID-19 pandemic. In this research, a hesitant fuzzy multicriteria decision making (MCDM) method, hesitant fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (hesitant F-AHP), is implemented to make pairwise comparison of COVID-19 country-level intervention strategies applied by various countries and determine relative importance scores. An illustrative study is presented where fifteen intervention strategies applied by various countries in the world during the COVID-19 pandemic are evaluated by seven physicians (a professor of infectious diseases and clinical microbiology, an infectious disease physician, a clinical microbiology physician, two internal medicine physicians, an anesthesiology and reanimation physician, and a family physician) in Turkey who act as DMs in the process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.