ArticleGut2024
Environmental impact of single-use versus reusable gastroscopes.
Article in Gut, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Environmental footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy services: a systematic review.Endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- The carbon footprints of single-use and reusable medical devices: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- Systematic Review: Ultrasound Goes Echo-Decarbonising Inflammatory Bowel Disease Care Through Intestinal Ultrasound.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2025Pooled it
- Environmental and economic impact of validated endoscope storage systems: a life cycle assessment and scenario analysis of avoided morning reprocessing.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Paving the way for green endoscopy in Saudi Arabia: A call for sustainable gastroenterology practice.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association · 2026Article
- Nursing leadership for sustainable endoscopy: a narrative review and practice framework.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Contribution of hospitals and clinical services to global warming: a scoping systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- [Critical assessment of single-use endoscopes].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Assessing the carbon footprint of medical diagnostic testing: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Current status and trends of green endoscopy.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Review
- Streamlining Endoscopy Cleaning: The Impact of a New Detergent on Time and Water Use.Journal of market access & health policy · 2025Article
- Article
- Single-use versus reusable endoscopes in gastroenterology: Systematic review of full and partial economic evaluations.Endoscopy international open · 2025Review
- Environmental footprint of a colonoscopy procedure: Life cycle assessment.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe environmental impact of endoscopy is a topic of growing interest. This study aimed to compare the carbon footprint of performing an esogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with a reusable (RU) or with a single-use (SU) disposable gastroscope.
methodsSU (Ambu aScope Gastro) and RU gastroscopes (Olympus, H190) were evaluated using life cycle assessment methodology (ISO 14040) including the manufacture, distribution, usage, reprocessing and disposal of the endoscope. Data were obtained from Edouard Herriot Hospital (Lyon, France) from April 2023 to February 2024. Primary outcome was the carbon footprint (measured in Kg CO
resultsCarbon footprint of SU and RU gastroscopes were 10.9 kg CO
conclusionFor one examination, SU gastroscope have a 2.5 times higher carbon footprint than RU ones. These data will help with the logistics and planning of an endoscopic service in relation to other economic and environmental factors.
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.