Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37865638›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Research on the location decision-making method of emergency medical facilities based on WSR.

Hao Wang, Peng Luo, Yimeng Wu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Hao WangSchool of Architecture, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, 150001, China.
Peng LuoSchool of Architecture, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, 150001, China. pengluo@hit.edu.cn.
Yimeng WuSchool of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore, Singapore, 117548, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The need for emergency medical services increased drastically during disaster relief. Poor location selection of emergency medical facilities may harm the interests of healthcare workers and patients, leading to unnecessary waste of costs. It involves multiple stakeholders' interests, a typical multi-criteria decision-making problem. Based on multiple-criteria decision-making technology, most current location selection decisions methods comprehensively consider the evaluation criteria of "issue" and "problem" simultaneously and establish mathematical models to achieve the results. Such methods are difficult to take into account the influence of different attribute factors on the final location selection results in practice. Therefore, in this study, we used the WSR methodology as a guide to divide the factors of location selection into "Wuli", "Shili" and "Renli", and proposed the WSR methodology-based multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) framework for selecting the appropriate location for emergency medical facilities. The integrated framework consists of the Entropy Weight Method, Best-Worst Method, and interval type-2 fuzzy Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) methodologies. Combined with the comparative analysis of actual cases, the results under the guidance of this framework were consistent with practicalities. Also, the sensitivity analysis showed that the location selection ranking fluctuations were not apparent with the fluctuation of criteria weights. Wherefore, the validation of the proposed method's effectiveness, feasibility, and robustness was proved, which provided a valuable reference for the location selection of emergency medical facilities.

Indexed as

Decision MakingModels, TheoreticalHealth FacilitiesHumans

Identifiers

PMID37865638
PMCPMC10590399

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.