ArticleScientific reports2023
Vendor evaluation platform for acquisition of medical equipment based on multi-criteria decision-making approach.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Appropriate fleet selection using dynamic multi-criteria decision making (case study: Gol-E-Gohar Mine No. 3).Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A decision-theoretic framework for wastewater treatment performance assessment based on a fuzzy parameterized fuzzy hypersoft set approach.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Optimal design of agro-residue filled poly(lactic acid) biocomposites using an integrated CRITIC-CoCoSo multi-criteria decision-making approach.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Research on establishment decision of medical equipment measurement standard based on GDM-AHP.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Assessing habitat selection parameters of Arabica coffee using BWM and BCM methods based on GIS.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Skin cancer classification based on an optimized convolutional neural network and multicriteria decision-making.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
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.