ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Life-safety disparity index: a comprehensive, valid, and reliable tool to assess Chinese people's life-safety performance.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: In order to accurately and quantitatively grasp the current situation and trend of Chinese people's life-safety performance and to provide scientific basis and suggestions for the government, scientific research institutions, enterprises and the public to do a good job in life-safety protection. Methods: The establishment process of life-safety disparity index (LDI) included six steps, including (i) concept building (ii) framework formulation; (iii) indicator selection; (iv) database building; (v) weight determination; and (vi) LDI scores calculation. The indicator scheme for LDI based on this framework was constructed after multiple rounds of panel discussions with our expert advisory committee. We adopted the Data envelopment analysis-Compromise planning (DEA-CP) model to determine the weights for each indicator and calculate score. Results: The weighted indicator scheme of LDI comprised 6 first-grade indicators, 21 s-grade indicators, and 65 third-grade indicators. According to the pilot analysis based on the data from 31 provinces of China mainland, the maximum value of LDI was 100.00, the minimum value was 54.75, and the maximum value was 1.83 times the minimum value. According to the score, China mainland was divided into 5 life-safety guarantee zones, including high security zone, medium to high security zone, medium security zone, low to medium security zone, and low security zone. Conclusion: LDI, which has been strictly verified, would represent the world's first assessment tool that builds a conceptual framework from the overall perspective of ensuring life-safety.
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.