These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
168 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34604502)
41. Occupational musculoskeletal disorders management using Fuzzy TOPSIS Assessment of Repetitive Tasks (ART). Khandan M; Koohpaei AR; Nili M; Farjami Y Work; 2017; 56(2):267-276. PubMed ID: 28234261 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Bottled water quality ranking via the multiple-criteria decision-making process: a case study of two-stage fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS. Nabizadeh R; Yousefzadeh S; Yaghmaeian K; Alimohammadi M; Mokhtari Z Environ Sci Pollut Res Int; 2022 Mar; 29(14):20437-20448. PubMed ID: 34735703 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Occupational health and safety risk assessment using a fuzzy multi-criteria approach in a hospital in Chennai, India. Badida P; Janakiraman S; Jayaprakash J Int J Occup Saf Ergon; 2023 Sep; 29(3):1047-1056. PubMed ID: 36004476 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
46. Multi-criteria decision support framework for sustainable implementation of effective green supply chain management practices. Boutkhoum O; Hanine M; Boukhriss H; Agouti T; Tikniouine A Springerplus; 2016; 5(1):664. PubMed ID: 27350904 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Human risk assessment of Panchet Dam in India using TOPSIS and WASPAS Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods. Bid S; Siddique G Heliyon; 2019 Jun; 5(6):e01956. PubMed ID: 31294108 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Developing an integrated risk management framework for agricultural water conveyance and distribution systems within fuzzy decision making approaches. Orojloo M; Hashemy Shahdany SM; Roozbahani A Sci Total Environ; 2018 Jun; 627():1363-1376. PubMed ID: 30857100 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. A multi-objective framework for multidimensional vulnerability assessment - Case of a coastal district of West Bengal, India. Bera S; Das A; Mazumder T J Environ Manage; 2019 Nov; 249():109411. PubMed ID: 31466042 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process-enhanced fuzzy geometric mean-fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution approach for suitable hotel recommendation amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Toly Chen TC; Wu HC; Hsu KW Digit Health; 2022; 8():20552076221084457. PubMed ID: 35284086 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Flood vulnerability assessment in the Jamuna river floodplain using multi-criteria decision analysis: A case study in Jamalpur district, Bangladesh. Nahin KTK; Islam SB; Mahmud S; Hossain I Heliyon; 2023 Mar; 9(3):e14520. PubMed ID: 37020948 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Cobot selection using hybrid AHP-TOPSIS based multi-criteria decision making technique for fuel filter assembly process. C S; Subramaniam SK Heliyon; 2024 Feb; 10(4):e26374. PubMed ID: 38390129 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Assessment of coastal vulnerability using integrated fuzzy analytical hierarchy process and geospatial technology for effective coastal management. Akash SH; Sarkar SK; Bindajam AA; Kumari R; Talukdar S; Mallick J Environ Sci Pollut Res Int; 2024 Sep; 31(41):53749-53766. PubMed ID: 37391562 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. An integrated methodology to overcome barriers to climate change mitigation strategies: a case of the cement industry in India. Balsara S; Jain PK; Ramesh A Environ Sci Pollut Res Int; 2021 Apr; 28(16):20451-20475. PubMed ID: 33410023 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. GIS-Based Forest Fire Susceptibility Zonation with IoT Sensor Network Support, Case Study-Nature Park Golija, Serbia. Novkovic I; Markovic GB; Lukic D; Dragicevic S; Milosevic M; Djurdjic S; Samardzic I; Lezaic T; Tadic M Sensors (Basel); 2021 Sep; 21(19):. PubMed ID: 34640837 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Evaluation of the treatment options for COVID-19 patients using generalized hesitant fuzzy- multi criteria decision making techniques. Nandi S; Granata G; Jana S; Ghorui N; Mondal SP; Bhaumik M Socioecon Plann Sci; 2023 Aug; 88():101614. PubMed ID: 37346799 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Capacity Evaluation of Diagnostic Tests For COVID-19 Using Multicriteria Decision-Making Techniques. Sayan M; Sarigul Yildirim F; Sanlidag T; Uzun B; Uzun Ozsahin D; Ozsahin I Comput Math Methods Med; 2020; 2020():1560250. PubMed ID: 32802146 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. An Integrated MCDM Model for Conveyor Equipment Evaluation and Selection in an FMC Based on a Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy ARAS in the Presence of Vagueness. Nguyen HT; Dawal SZ; Nukman Y; Rifai AP; Aoyama H PLoS One; 2016; 11(4):e0153222. PubMed ID: 27070543 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Selection of MSW landfill site by fuzzy-AHP approach combined with GIS: case study in Ahvaz, Iran. Chabok M; Asakereh A; Bahrami H; Jaafarzadeh NO Environ Monit Assess; 2020 Jun; 192(7):433. PubMed ID: 32542483 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. A novel intuitionistic fuzzy MCDM-based CODAS approach for locating an authorized dismantling center: a case study of Istanbul. Karagoz S; Deveci M; Simic V; Aydin N; Bolukbas U Waste Manag Res; 2020 Jun; 38(6):660-672. PubMed ID: 31969081 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]