ReviewScientific reports2023
Evaluating and prioritizing the healthcare waste disposal center locations using a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making method.
Review in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimal design of agro-residue filled poly(lactic acid) biocomposites using an integrated CRITIC-CoCoSo multi-criteria decision-making approach.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Distance and similarity measures on belief and plausibility under q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets with applications.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
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
Healthcare waste disposal center location (HCWDCL) impacts the environment and the health of living beings. Different and sometimes contradictory criteria in determining the appropriate site location for disposing of healthcare waste (HCW) complicate the decision-making process. This research presents a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method, named PROMSIS, to determine the appropriate HCWDCL in a real case. The PROMSIS is the combination of two well-known MCDM methods, namely TOPSIS and PROMETHEE. Moreover, fuzzy theory is used to describe the uncertainties of the problem parameters. To provide a reliable decision on selecting the best HCWDCL, a comprehensive list of criteria is identified through a literature review and experts' opinions obtained from the case study. In total, 40 criteria are identified and classified into five major criteria, namely economic, environmental, social, technical, and geological. The weight of the considered criteria is determined by the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method. Then, the score of the alternative HCWDCLs in each considered criterion is obtained. Finally, the candidate locations for disposing of HCWs are ranked by the proposed fuzzy PROMSIS method. The results show that the most important criteria in ranking the alternatives in the studied case are economic, environmental, and social, respectively. Moreover, the sub-criteria of operating cost, transportation cost, and pollution are identified as the most important sub-criteria, respectively.
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.