ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Evaluation of Common Prosperity Level and Regional Difference Analysis along the Yangtze River Economic Belt.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Regional differences in the level of healthcare in China.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of the Common Prosperity Aspiration Scale: A Mixed-Methods Study in China.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Research on the logical mechanism and path of digital new quality productivity enabling common prosperity.PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Regional common prosperity level and its spatial relationship with carbon emission intensity in China.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Measurement of Common Prosperity of Chinese Rural Households Using Graded Response Models: Evidence from Zhejiang Province.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Equity and efficiency of medical and health service system in China.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- A study of the effect of population aggregation on common prosperity: Evidence from 283 Chinese cities.PloS one · 2023Article
- Common prosperity level evaluation: A comprehensive method based on probabilistic linguistic ordered weighted distance measure, prospect theory, and TOPSIS.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Common prosperity is the essential requirement of socialism as well as the common aspiration of social people. This article constructed an evaluation index system of 25 indicators for common prosperity, covering four dimensions of material wealth, harmonious social life, rich spiritual life, and livable ecological environment. The TOPSIS method was used to comprehensively rank nine provinces and two municipalities in the Yangtze River Economic Belt. The results show that the level of common prosperity along the Yangtze River Economic Belt increased significantly from 2010 to 2019, and the level of common prosperity in the lower reaches of the Yangtze River Economic Belt is much higher than that in the middle and upper reaches. According to the differences in common prosperity levels among regions, provinces and cities are divided into three categories: high, unbalanced, and low. Combined with the characteristics of each type of region, policy suggestions were put forward from the perspectives of strengthening the regional industrial cooperation mechanism, deepening the construction of regional livelihood infrastructure and basic public services, and improving the ability of regional environmental coordination.
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.