Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40615416›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

A novel Fractional fuzzy approach for multi-criteria decision-making in medical waste management.

Muhammad Amad Sarwar, Yuezheng Gong, Sarah A Alzakari, Amel Ali Alhussan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Medical waste management within the Green Hospital approach: a systematic review of direct, contextual, and transferable evidence.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

4 authors.

Muhammad Amad SarwarSchool of Mathematics, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, 210016, China. m.amadsarwar26@gmail.com.
Yuezheng GongSchool of Mathematics, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, 210016, China. gongyuezheng@nuaa.edu.cn.
Sarah A AlzakariDepartment of Computer Sciences, College of Computer and Information Sciences, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, P.O. Box 84428, Riyadh, 11671, Saudi Arabia.
Amel Ali AlhussanDepartment of Computer Sciences, College of Computer and Information Sciences, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, P.O. Box 84428, Riyadh, 11671, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Urban populations, coupled with increased healthcare service usage, highlight the need for safe and sustainable medical waste management (MWM). Choosing the right technology for MWM is a crucial challenge for decision-makers aiming to protect public health. Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) techniques are often used to address uncertainty and complexity inherent in such decisions. MCDM techniques based on traditional fuzzy sets (such as spherical and t-spherical fuzzy sets) leave significant membership value. In this response, a f, g, h-fractional fuzzy set (f, g, h-FrFS) based MCDM model is introduced. This study introduces the f, g, h-FrFS based Hamming and normalized Hamming distances. Additionally, we propose an improved Criteria Importance through Inter-Criteria Correlation (CRITIC) method to assess criteria weights and a novel distance-based Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method to evaluate and rank MWM technologies. To test the robustness of the proposed approach, a sensitivity analysis is conducted, demonstrating the stability of the model under varying conditions. The result is the development of a comprehensive MCDM framework, referred to as f, g, h-FrF-CRITIC-TOPSIS, which incorporates relevant criteria for evaluating MWM technologies. The effectiveness of this framework is further validated through a comparative study. The results align with the actual situation and offer valuable insights into the implementation of suitable treatment technologies for MWM. This methodology proves to be highly effective in addressing the complex decision-making challenges associated with MWM, particularly in uncertain environments. Ultimately, this technique offers significant value for policymakers and organizations involved in medical systems. In medical premises, MWM is complicated, so this tool can assist them in navigating the complexities.

Indexed as

CRITICDecision makingfgh-fractional fuzzy setsMedical waste managementTOPSIS

Identifiers

PMID40615416
PMCPMC12227640

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.