ArticleInsights into imaging2024
Waste analysis and energy use estimation during MR-HIFU treatment: first steps towards calculating total environmental impact.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Environmental sustainability of ultrasound-guided core-needle breast biopsy: a survey on current practices by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI).Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Contribution of hospitals and clinical services to global warming: a scoping systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Advancing circular economy practices in radiography: a narrative review of sustainable medical imaging.Translational cancer research · 2025Review
- Embedding Sustainability into the Imaging and Care of Patients with Cancer.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the environmental impact of the non-invasive Magnetic Resonance image-guided High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (MR-HIFU) treatment of uterine fibroids, we aimed to perform a full Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). However, as a full LCA was not feasible at this time, we evaluated the CO
methodsOur functional unit was one uterine fibroid MR-HIFU treatment. The moment the patient entered the day care-unit until she left, defined our boundaries of investigation. We retrospectively collected data from 25 treatments to assess the CO
resultsDuring an MR-HIFU treatment, the MRI scanner and MR-HIFU device produced 33.2 ± 8.7 kg of CO
conclusionsEnvironmental impact should ideally be analyzed for all (new) medical treatments. By assessing part of the CO CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: In addition to (cost-) effectiveness, the environmental impact of new treatments should be assessed. We took the first steps towards analyzing the total environmental impact of uterine fibroid MR-HIFU. KEY POINTS: • Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) should be performed for all (new) medical treatments. • We took the first steps towards analyzing the environmental impact of uterine fibroid MR-HIFU. • Energy used by the MRI scanner and MR-HIFU device corresponded to 33.2 ± 8.7 kg of CO
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.