Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41312247›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2025

Application of the case-mix index and length of stay for hospital waste management comparison: introduction of a new adjusted metric.

Adam Kaposi, Attila Nagy, Gabriella Gomori, Denes Kocsis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Adam KaposiDepartment of Hospital Hygiene, University of Debrecen Clinical Centre, Debrecen, Hungary.
Attila NagyCoordinating Centre for Epidemiology, University of Debrecen Clinical Centre, Debrecen, Hungary.
Gabriella GomoriDepartment of Hospital Hygiene, University of Debrecen Clinical Centre, Debrecen, Hungary.
Denes KocsisDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Hazardous healthcare waste (HHCW) presents escalating environmental and operational challenges, yet traditional indicators such as waste generation rate (kg/bed/day) fail to account for patient complexity or care intensity, leading to biased institutional comparisons. Despite various previous normalization attempts, no validated framework has yet integrated clinical and operational heterogeneity into a single benchmarking metric. This study introduces and validates the Complexity-Adjusted Waste Index (CAWI), a novel metric that integrates the Case-Mix Index (CMI) and Length of Stay (LOS) to normalize waste generation across hospitals with heterogeneous clinical profiles. Methods: Using national data from 94 inpatient institutions in Hungary (2017-2021), CAWI was calculated and compared with conventional HHCW generation rates through Spearman correlation, Fisher's Results: Results show that higher CMI correlates with increased HHCW ( Discussion: By explicitly combining patient complexity and treatment intensity into a transferable normalization framework, CAWI advances current benchmarking approaches both theoretically and methodologically. The CAWI framework offers a statistically robust and scalable solution for complexity-sensitive benchmarking, enabling more accurate cross-institutional comparisons and supporting targeted waste reduction strategies aligned with circular economy principles.

Indexed as

Diagnosis-Related GroupsHospitalsLength of StayWaste ManagementBenchmarkingHumansHungarycase-mix indexhazardous wastehealthcare waste managementlength of staysustainabilitywaste generation rate

Identifiers

PMID41312247
PMCPMC12647027

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.