Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41208918›Full record

ReviewThe International journal, advanced manufacturing technology2025

A systematic review of decision tools for process selection and performance improvement in manufacturing.

Ziyad Sherif, Konstantinos Salonitis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The International journal, advanced manufacturing technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Ziyad SherifSustainable Manufacturing Systems Centre, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Cranfield University, Cranfield, MK43 0AL UK.
Konstantinos SalonitisSustainable Manufacturing Systems Centre, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Cranfield University, Cranfield, MK43 0AL UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1059-364X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The growing complexity of manufacturing processes and the increasing diversity of decision-making tools present challenges in selecting effective approaches for process optimisation. Many existing tools are either too narrowly focused or inconsistently applied across sectors, limiting their broader impact. Additionally, the lack of clear integration strategies often hinders their full implementation in industrial settings. This systematic review examines decision-making tools that enable comparative assessments applied at the unit process level in manufacturing, covering both the selection between competing manufacturing routes and the optimisation of specific processes. A total of 37 journal articles were selected through a structured database search and evaluation process. The review analyses commonly used tools such as Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), and Direct Comparison, highlighting their applications, benefits and limitations. Findings show that MCDA offers robust, multi-dimensional evaluations but is often constrained by complexity and data demands. In contrast, simpler methods like Direct Comparison provide more accessible insights but with a limited scope. Advanced tools such as Deep Learning and Computational Simulations hold promise but face challenges in scaling beyond the process level. Notably, there is limited integration of sustainability metrics within process-level decision-making. To address this, the study proposes a structured framework to guide future research and implementation, focusing on data management, AI integration and tool scalability. The results highlight the need for hybrid approaches that combine different tools to balance trade-offs and support long-term sustainability and operational efficiency in manufacturing systems.

Indexed as

Comparative analysisDecision-makingManufacturing processes

Identifiers

PMID41208918
PMCPMC12592300

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.