ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Evaluating the metropolitan public health preparedness for pandemics using entropy-TOPSIS-IF.
Article 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating emergency management capabilities and identifying their related factors for public health emergencies in China.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Research on the measurement of China's emergency management capabilities for public health emergencies and their driving factors.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of the Kano-AHP-TRIZ-TOPSIS integrated model for analyzing the healthcare emergency facility needs of the older adults.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Evaluating university emergency resilience with a focus on student safety and health.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Evaluation approach of prefabricated components based on multi-layer complex network model combined with improved topsis method.PloS one · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Metropolitan governance's efficacy is regularly gauged by its capability for public health preparedness, a critical component, particularly in the post-pandemic climate, as global cities reassess their mitigation abilities. This process has broader implications, curbing mortality rates and amplifying sustainability. Current methodologies for preparedness assessment lean primarily on either Subjective Evaluation-Based Assessment (SBA), predicated on experts' input on various capacity indicators, or they opt for Data-Based quantitative Assessments (DBA), chiefly utilizing public statistic data. Methods: The manuscript discusses an urgent need for integrating both SBA and DBA to adequately measure Metropolitan Public Health Pandemics Preparedness (MPHPP), thus proposing a novel entropy-TOPSIS-IF model for comprehensive evaluation of MPHPP. Within this proposed model, experts' subjective communication is transformed into quantitative data via the aggregation of fuzzy decisions, while objective data is collected from public statistics sites. Shannon's entropy and TOPSIS methods are enacted on these data sets to ascertain the optimal performer after normalization and data isotropy. Results and discussion: The core contribution of the entropy-TOPSIS-IF model lies in its assessment flexibility, making it universally applicable across various contexts, regardless of the availability of expert decisions or quantitative data. To illustrate the efficacy of the entropy-TOPSIS-IF model, a numerical application is presented, examining three Chinese metropolises through chosen criteria according to the evaluations of three experts. A sensitivity analysis is provided to further affirm the stability and robustness of the suggested MPHPP evaluation model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.