Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35709809›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Planetary health2022

Addressing the environmental sustainability of eye health-care delivery: a scoping review.

John C Buchan, Cassandra L Thiel, Annalien Steyn, John Somner, Rengaraj Venkatesh, Matthew J Burton, Jacqueline Ramke

Erratum issuedAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Planetary health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Sustainability practices made easy.Eye (London, England) · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Environmental impact of patient travel for cataract surgery.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

John C BuchanInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. Electronic address: john.buchan@lshtm.ac.uk.
Cassandra L ThielNYU Grossman School of Medicine, Department of Population Health, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
Annalien SteynDepartment of Opthalmology, Groote Schuur Hospital, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
John SomnerDepartment of Opthalmology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Rengaraj VenkateshAravind Eye Hospital, Pondicherry, India.
Matthew J BurtonInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.
Jacqueline RamkeInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 20190426_PH2Wellcome Trust 207472
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The demand for eye care-the most common medical speciality in some countries-is increasing globally due to both demographic change and the development of eye health-care services in low-income and middle-income countries. This expansion of service provision needs to be environmentally sustainable. We conducted a scoping review to establish the nature and extent of the literature describing the environmental costs of delivering eye-care services, identify interventions to diminish the environmental impact of eye care, and identify key sustainability themes that are not yet being addressed. We identified 16 peer-reviewed articles for analysis, all published since 2009. Despite a paucity of research evidence, there is a need for the measurement of environmental impacts associated with eye care to be standardised along with the methodological tools to assess these impacts. The vastly different environmental costs of delivering clinical services with similar clinical outcomes in different regulatory settings is striking; in one example, a phacoemulsification cataract extraction in a UK hospital produced more than 20 times the greenhouse gas emission of the same procedure in an Indian hospital. The environmental costs must be systematically included when evaluating the risks and benefits of new interventions or policies aimed at promoting safety in high-income countries.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareIncomeEnvironment

Identifiers

PMID35709809
PMCPMC7618290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.