ArticleScientific reports2025
Municipal solid waste incineration bottom ash in concrete : A systematic review and meta-analysis.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utilization of Municipal Solid Waste Ash in Concrete Blends in Israel Part B: Combustion in a Semi-Industrial Incinerator.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Performance assessment of medical waste incineration ash as partial cement replacement in concrete: Bangladesh perspective.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Mechanical and Environmental Performance of Chemical Pretreated Incineration Bottom Ash as a Supplementary Cementitious Material.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Bottom Ash (MSWIBA), a byproduct of waste-to-energy (WtE) facilities, has emerged as a promising candidate for use both as a sustainable aggregate replacement in concrete and as a supplementary cementitious material (SCM). This systematic review and meta-analysis, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, evaluates its mechanical, durability, and environmental impacts. A literature search (2000-2025) across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Engineering Village identified 38 studies with 312 experimental groups. Random-effects meta-analysis showed that MSWIBA replacement up to 20% results in a modest reduction in compressive strength (Standardized Mean Difference [SMD] = - 0.42, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] - 0.58 to - 0.26, p < 0.001), with substantial heterogeneity (I
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.