Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32773547›Full record

ArticleJournal of cataract and refractive surgery2020

Survey of cataract surgeons' and nurses' attitudes toward operating room waste.

David F Chang, Cassandra L Thiel, Ophthalmic Instrument Cleaning and Sterilization Task Force

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing 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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Patients' Perspectives on Climate Change, Health, and Sustainability in Ophthalmology.Ophthalmologica. Journal international d'ophtalmologie. International journal of ophthalmology. Zeitschrift fur Augenheilkunde · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Sustainability practices made easy.Eye (London, England) · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

David F ChangFrom the University of California, San Francisco (Chang), San Francisco, California, and the Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine (Thiel), New York City, New York, USA.
Cassandra L Thiel
Ophthalmic Instrument Cleaning and Sterilization Task Force

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In an online survey of more than 1300 cataract surgeons and nurses, 93% believed that operating room waste is excessive and should be reduced; 78% believed that we should reuse more supplies; 90% were concerned about global warming; and 87% wanted medical societies to advocate for reducing the surgical carbon footprint. The most commonly cited reasons for excessive waste were regulatory and manufacturer restrictions on reuse or multiple use of devices, supplies, and pharmaceuticals. More than 90% believed that profit, liability reduction, and failure to consider carbon footprint drive manufacturers to produce more single-use products; more than 90% want more reusable products and more regulatory and manufacturer discretion over when and which products can be reused. Assuming comparable cost, 79% of surgeons preferred reusable over disposable instruments. In order of decreasing consensus, most were interested in reusing topical and intracameral medications, phacoemulsification tips, irrigating solutions/tubing, blades, cannulas, devices, and surgical gowns.

Indexed as

CataractNursesSurgeonsAttitudeDisposable EquipmentEquipment ReuseHumansOperating Rooms

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.