daSouzaMelare_2017 - Technologies and decision support systems to aid solid-waste management: a systematic review

Basic Article Info:

Article key daSouzaMelare_2017
Title Technologies and decision support systems to aid solid-waste management: a systematic review
Year 2017
Review type systematic review
Main topic Decision support systems applied to Solid Waste Management
Subjects area(s) Information technology, Environment and nature, Policy, administration and planning
Built environment scale Urban area / Urban system
Application(s) Policy making, Implementation, Design, Innovation, Evaluation
Geographically focused no
Prisma diagram used no
Study focus start 2010
Study focus end 2013
Search string Default string defining publication inclusion: (recycling or recyclable or recycled or reusable or ‘‘solid waste‘‘ or msu or reuse of materials or sustainability or waste solid or ‘‘garbage recycling” or ‘‘recycling coopera- tive” or ‘‘recycled cooperative” or ‘‘reusable cooperative” or ”recycling waste‘‘ or ‘‘waste collector” or ‘‘waste man- agement” or ‘‘electronic waste‘‘) AND (‘‘decision support system” or DSS or ‘‘decision support” or ‘‘business intelligence” or BI or ‘‘information technology” or IT or ‘‘data mining” or ‘‘data warehouse” or ‘‘analytical processing” or ‘‘manalytical procedure” or OLAP or KDD or ‘‘knowledge discovery” or ‘‘pattern recognition” or ‘‘machine learning” or ‘‘geographic information system” or GIS or geoprocessing or ‘‘geographical information system”) AND (tool or system or software or application or model or modeling or technique or method or project) Default string defining publication exclusion: (chemical or organics or water or hospital or medical or carbon or agriculture or electrical energy or gas or nanoparticles or radioactive or gaseous)
No. of original sources 87
Synthesis method qualitative
Quantitative map included yes
Conflict of interest not declared specifically
Comments "This review considered publications from 2010 to Febru- ary 2013 owing to the excessive number of publications"

 

Details about searches

Search sources
Search source name Source type Comments Weblink
Scopus Online Database Scopus is the world's largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed research literature. With over 22,000 titles from more than 5,000 international publishers. https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic
Web of Sciences Online Database Web of Science is an online subscription-based scientific citation indexing service originally produced by the Institute for Scientific Information, now maintained by Clarivate Analytics, that provides a comprehensive citation search. https://apps.webofknowledge.com
IEEE Xplore Online Database IEEE Xplore is a scholarly research database that indexes, abstracts, and provides full-text for articles and papers on computer science, electrical engineering and electronics. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/home.jsp
Science Direct Online Database ScienceDirect is a website which provides subscription-based access to a large database of scientific and medical research. It hosts over 12 million pieces of content from 3,500 academic journals and 34,000 e-books. https://www.sciencedirect.com/
ACM Digital Library Online Database ACM's prestigious conferences and journals are seeking top-quality papers in all areas of computing and IT. It is now easier than ever to find the most appropriate venue for your research and publish with ACM. https://dl.acm.org/
Keywords used in search analytical procedure, analytical processing, application, BI, business intelligence, data mining, data warehouse, decision support, decision support system, DSS, electronic waste, garbage recycling, geographic information system , geographical information system, geoprocessing, GIS, information technology, IT, KDD, knowledge discovery, machine learning, method, model, modeling, msu, OLAP, pattern recognition, project, recyclable, recycled, recycling, recycling cooperative, recycling waste, reusable, reuse of materials, software, solid waste, sustainability, system, technique, tool, waste collector, waste management, waste solid

 

Authorship

Authors
Name Email Organisation Address Country
Angelina Vitorino de Souza Melaré* angelinamelare@gmail.com Faculdade de Tecnologia Dom Amaury Castanho - FATEC Itu Brazil
Sahudy Montenegro González sahudy@ufscar.br Federal University of São Carlos Brazil
Katti Faceli katti@ufscar.br Federal University of São Carlos Brazil
Vitor Casadei vitor.casadei@gmail.com Federal University of São Carlos Brazil

 

Funding

Funding sources No funding sources recorded


Article publication information:

Article type Journal article
Article category Text
Geographical scale International
Language English
Chapter or part
Conference date
Conference venue
Published date 2016-11-09
Edition
Issue
Journal Waste Management
Pagination 567-584
Peer reviewed yes
Publication place
Publisher Elsevier Ltd.
School / department or centre
Series volume no.
Series title
Series sort no.
Volume 59
Website owner
Copyrights of article Elsevier Ltd.
Licences of article
Identifiers of article DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.10.045, ISSN: 18792456


Quality assessment

Quality measure Details Score Comments
QA question 1 Are the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review clearly delineated? 1 = “Yes” = Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described. general but concrete description of aims
QA question 2 Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. Only partial description protocol mentioned
QA question 3 Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” =Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. any peer-reviewed articles for the scoping/mapping purpose
QA question 4 Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = searched at least 2 databases (relevant to research question), provided key word and/or general search strategy, justified publication restrictions (e.g., language). six databases
QA question 5 Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? 0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in study selection. No description how many reviewers participated
QA question 6 Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? 0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in data extraction. No description how many reviewers participated
QA question 7 Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? 0 =”No” = No list of studies excluded at a full-text stage. not provided
QA question 8 Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When briefly described, or only some of these described in detail. Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. Tables 1-6
QA question 9 Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? 0 =”No” = no mention of RoB assessment of individual included studies. not provided
QA question 10 Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? 0 =”No” = no report of the sources of funding for individual studies included in the review. not provided
QA question 11 If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 12 If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 13 Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? 0 =”No” = no discussion of the potential impact of RoB in individual studies. not provided
QA question 14 Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? 1 = “Yes” = There was no significant heterogeneity in the results OR if heterogeneity was present the authors performed an investigation of sources of any heterogeneity in the results and discussed the impact of this on the results of the review. discussed methodological factors
QA question 15 If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 16 Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? 0 = ”No” = The authors did not provide statement on competing interests and funding sources, and how they managed potential conflicts of interest. not provided
Quality index Overall rating (Quality Index) assigned to each SR, highlighting whether major concerns arose during quality assessment that may affect overall conclusions of a SR: A = Minimal flaws; B = Some flaws; C = Major flaws in many aspects of the review. B some details missing, some bias might be present
Suggested review type Actual review type:systematic map, systematic review, rapid review, scoping review, narrative review, etc. systematic map N/A
Risk of bias level How likely are the main conclusions of the review to be biased? Basing on review type and quality index and quality_index_comment assign: high moderate or low risk? medium search details missing; no statement on conflict of interests/funding