Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35742724›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

A Transparency Checklist for Carbon Footprint Calculations Applied within a Systematic Review of Virtual Care Interventions.

Oliver Lange, Julian Plath, Timo F Dziggel, David F Karpa, Mattis Keil, Tom Becker, Wolf H Rogowski

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Points to consider for incorporating climate impacts into health economic evaluation.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Precision and Virtual Care.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Oliver LangeDepartment of Health Care Management, Institute of Public Health and Nursing Research, Health Sciences, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9780-7334
Julian PlathProfessional Public Decision Making, Faculty of Cultural Studies, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany.
Timo F DziggelProfessional Public Decision Making, Faculty of Cultural Studies, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany.
David F KarpaFaculty of Business Studies and Economics, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany.
Mattis KeilDepartment of Health Care Management, Institute of Public Health and Nursing Research, Health Sciences, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0180-2358
Tom BeckerProfessional Public Decision Making, Faculty of Cultural Studies, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany.
Wolf H RogowskiDepartment of Health Care Management, Institute of Public Health and Nursing Research, Health Sciences, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1625-4171

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increasing concerns about climate change imply that decisions on the digitization of healthcare should consider evidence about its carbon footprint (CF). This study aims to develop a transparency catalogue for reporting CF calculations, to compare results, and to assess the transparency (reporting quality) of the current evidence of virtual care (VC) intervention. We developed a checklist of transparency criteria based on the consolidation of three established standards/norms for CF calculation. We conducted a systematic review of primary studies written in English or German on the CF of VC interventions to check applicability. Based on our checklist, we extracted methodological information. We compared the results and calculated a transparency score. The checklist comprises 22 items in the aim, scope, data and analysis categories. Twenty-three studies out of 1466 records were included, mostly addressing telemedicine. The mean transparency score was 38% (minimum 14%, maximum 68%). On average, 148 kg carbon dioxide equivalents per patient were saved. Digitization may have co-benefits, improving care and reducing the healthcare CF. However, the evidence for this is weak, and CF reports are heterogeneous. Our transparency checklist may serve as a reference for developing a standard to assess the CF of virtual and other healthcare and public health services.

Indexed as

Carbon FootprintTelemedicineChecklistHumanscarbon dioxide equivalentscarbon footprintdigital healthdigital public healthe-healthgreenhouse gassystematic reviewtelehealthtelemedicinevirtual care

Identifiers

PMID35742724
PMCPMC9223517

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.