ArticlePloS one2024
Metrics used in quality improvement publications addressing environmental sustainability in healthcare: A scoping review protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Metrics used in quality improvement publications addressing environmental sustainability in healthcare: a scoping review.BMJ quality & safety · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quality improvement approaches are increasingly being used to address the problem of healthcare's climate and ecological impact. While sustainability is increasingly recognized as a domain of quality, consensus is lacking on the most appropriate measures and metrics for those looking to reduce ecological impacts through quality improvement initiatives. We propose a scoping review to summarize approaches for selecting and quantifying ecological impacts in the published quality improvement literature. We will search multiple electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Scopus) from 2000 onwards, to identify published quality improvement initiatives in the human healthcare setting intended to address ecological impact with at least one quantitative measure of ecological impact, such as kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas. Two independent reviewers working in parallel will screen studies for inclusion and abstract study data, including publication, study, and ecological impact characteristics. Charted data will be synthesized narratively as well as with descriptive tables, figures, and summary statistics. In doing so, we will map areas of relative focus as well as gaps in the measurement of ecological impact across quality improvement initiatives. This map can in turn be used to raise awareness of ecological impacts requiring broader consideration, encouraging holistic and clinically relevant approaches to measuring ecological impact in future quality improvement work.
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.