Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36635108›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology2023

Environmental Impact of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostate Biopsy.

Michael S Leapman, Cassandra L Thiel, Ilyssa O Gordon, Adam C Nolte, Aaron Perecman, Stacy Loeb, Michael Overcash, Jodi D Sherman

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Michael S LeapmanDepartment of Urology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA. Electronic address: Michael.leapman@yale.edu.
Cassandra L ThielDepartment of Population Health, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Department of Ophthalmology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Department of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Ilyssa O GordonCleveland Clinic Sustainability, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Adam C NolteMount Sinai Hospital, Miami, FL, USA.
Aaron PerecmanThe Lahey Clinic, Burlington, MA, USA.
Stacy LoebDepartment of Urology, New York University Langone Health, New York, NY, USA; Departments of Urology and Population Health, New York University Langone Health, New York, NY, USA; Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Michael OvercashEnvironmental Genome Initiative, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Jodi D ShermanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReducing low-value clinical care is an important strategy to mitigate environmental pollution caused by health care.

objectiveTo estimate the environmental impacts associated with prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prostate biopsy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsWe performed a cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of prostate biopsy. Data included materials and energy inventory, patient and staff travel contributed by prostate MRI, transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy, and pathology analysis. We compared environmental emissions across five clinical scenarios: multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate with targeted and systematic biopsies (baseline), mpMRI with targeted biopsy cores only, systematic biopsy without MRI, mpMRI with systematic biopsy, and biparametric MRI (bpMRI) with targeted and systematic biopsies. We estimated the environmental impacts associated with reducing the overall number and varying the approach of a prostate biopsy by using MRI as a triage strategy or by omitting MRI. The study involved academic medical centers in the USA, outpatient urology clinics, health care facilities, medical staff, and patients. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Greenhouse gas emissions (CO RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In the USA, a single transrectal prostate biopsy procedure including prostate MRI, and targeted and systematic biopsies emits an estimated 80.7 kg CO

conclusionsA prostate biopsy contributes a calculable environmental footprint. Modifying or reducing the number of biopsies performed through existing evidence-based approaches would decrease health care pollution from the procedure. PATIENT SUMMARY: We estimated that prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a prostate biopsy procedure emits the equivalent of 80.7 kg of carbon dioxide. Performing fewer unnecessary prostate biopsies or using prostate MRI as a tool to decide which patients should have a prostate biopsy would reduce procedural greenhouse gas emissions and health care pollution.

Indexed as

Greenhouse GasesProstatic NeoplasmsBiopsyCarbon DioxideGasolineHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleProstateUltrasonography, InterventionalCarbon DioxideGasolineGreenhouse GasesEnvironmentGreenhouse gasProstate biopsyProstate magnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID36635108

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.