Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37876601›Full record

ArticleCritical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine2023

How much do we throw away in the intensive care unit? An observational point prevalence study of Australian and New Zealand ICUs.

Matthew H Anstey, Louise Trent, Deepak Bhonagiri, Naomi E Hammond, Serena Knowles, Forbes McGain, George Institute for Global Health and the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group, Steering Committee members, Coordinating centre List of investigators, Site List of investigators

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine, 2023. 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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. From carbon cost to climate care: Greening our intensive care units.World journal of critical care medicine · 2026
    Review
  2. Environmental sustainability evidence in critical care medicine: a scoping review.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2026
    Article
  3. Choosing Wisely Canada climate-conscious recommendations for critical care medicine.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. [S1 guideline on sustainability in intensive care and emergency medicine].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025
    Review
  6. Siloed thinking: The case for integrating economic and environmental analysis in critical care.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Matthew H AnsteyIntensive Care Department, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Australia.
Louise TrentIntensive Care Unit, Te Matau a Maui Hawke's Bay, Te Whata Ora- Health, New Zealand.
Deepak BhonagiriIntensive Care Department, Campbelltown, Sydney, Australia.
Naomi E HammondMalcolm Fisher Department of Intensive Care, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Serena KnowlesCritical Care Division, The George Institute for Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Forbes McGainWestern Health, Melbourne, Australia.
George Institute for Global Health and the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group
Steering Committee members
Coordinating centre List of investigators
Site List of investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: During the current COVID pandemic, waste generation has been more evident with increased use of single use masks, gowns and other personal protective equipment. We aimed to understand the scale of waste generation, recycling rates and participation in Australian and New Zealand (ANZ) ICUs. Design: This is a prospective cross-sectional point prevalence study, as part of the 2021 ANZICS Point Prevalence Program. Specific questions related to waste and sustainability practices were asked at the site and patient level. Setting and participants: ANZ adult ICUs and their patients on the day of the study. Main outcome measures: Amount of single use items disposed of per shift, as well as the engagement of the site with sustainability and recycling practices. Results: In total, 712 patients (median number of patients per ICU = 17, IQR 11-30) from 51 ICUs across ANZ were included in our study; 55% of hospitals had a sustainability officer, and recycling paper (86%) and plastics (65%) were frequent, but metal recycling was limited (27%). Per patient bed space per 12-h shift there was recycling of less than 40% paper, glass, intravenous fluid bags, medication cups and metal instruments. A median of 10 gowns (IQR 3-19.5), 10 syringes (4.5-18) and gloves 30 (18-49) were disposed of per bed space, per 12-h shift. These numbers increased significantly when comparing patients with and without infection control precautions in place. Conclusions: In ANZ ICUs, we found utilisation of common ICU consumables to be high and associated with low recycling rates. Interventions to abate resource utilisation and augment recycling are required to improve environmental sustainability in intensive care units.

Indexed as

Administration and health servicesAnaesthesia and intensive careInfectious diseaseWaste management

Identifiers

PMID37876601
PMCPMC10581268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.