ReviewFrontiers in public health2024
Safety risk assessment of subway shield construction under-crossing a river using CFA and FER.
Review in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reutilization of Silty Sandstone Shield Spoil for Sustainable Synchronous Grouting: Mechanical Properties and Microstructure Characterization.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Shield construction safety risks and their interrelations analysis of subway tunnel undercrossing a river based on Grey-DEMATEL-ISM.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Numerous subway projects are planned by China's city governments, and more subways can hardly avoid under-crossing rivers. While often being located in complex natural and social environments, subway shield construction under-crossing a river (SSCUR) is more susceptible to safety accidents, causing substantial casualties, and monetary losses. Therefore, there is an urgent need to investigate safety risks during SSCUR. The paper identified the safety risks during SSCUR by using a literature review and experts' evaluation, proposed a new safety risk assessment model by integrating confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and fuzzy evidence reasoning (FER), and then selected a project to validate the feasibility of the proposed model. Research results show that (a) a safety risk list of SSCUR was identified, including 5 first-level safety risks and 38 second-level safety risks; (b) the proposed safety risk assessment model can be used to assess the safety risk of SSCUR; (c) safety inspection, safety organization and duty, quicksand layer, and high-pressure phreatic water were the high-level risks, and the onsite total safety risk was at the medium level; (d) management-type safety risks, environment-type safety risks, and personnel-type safety risks have higher expected utility values, and manager-type safety risks were expected have higher risk-utility values when compared to worker-type safety risks. The research can enrich the theoretical knowledge of SSCUR safety risk assessment and provide references to safety managers for conducting scientific and effective safety management on the construction site when a subway crosses under a river.
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.