Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39493041›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Lowering the Carbon Footprint Through Telehealth Vasectomy Consults: A Retrospective Observational Study.

Paul J Wurtz, Emma Harwood, Thomas E Schroeder, Christopher M Deibert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Paul J WurtzInternal Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, USA.
Emma HarwoodUrology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, USA.
Thomas E SchroederUrology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, USA.
Christopher M DeibertUrology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to quantify the impact of shifting in-person pre-vasectomy consultations to telehealth visits on travel time and carbon footprint reduction. MATERIALS AND

methodsUtilizing retrospective chart analysis, we examined men who underwent vasectomy at our institution from November 15, 2020, to November 15, 2021. Using their home address, we estimated the distance and travel time with Google Maps direction services to our institution's outpatient urology clinic. We then quantified the number of miles of gas used by dividing that distance by 25 miles per gallon, based on the United States Environmental Protection Agency market average in 2020. We then estimated the pounds of carbon dioxide produced per gallon of gasoline using the United Energy Information Administration's estimate that each gallon of gasoline produces 18.74 pounds of carbon dioxide.

resultsAfter including 126 cases, the average patient saved 26 miles round trip between their home address and our institution's outpatient clinic. This averaged 43 minutes per round trip. Using our reference values, each trip saved an estimated 1.04 gallons of gasoline and 19.48 pounds of carbon being produced.

conclusionsBy transitioning pre-vasectomy consults from an in-person to a telehealth format, patients have added convenience in reduced travel in addition to a lower individual carbon footprint. Impact statement: With an average of 500,000 vasectomies performed per year, transitioning from in-person to telehealth vasectomy pre-consults has the potential to save patients' travel time while reducing their carbon footprint.

Indexed as

carbon footprintclimate changetelemedicinevasectomyvirtual health

Identifiers

PMID39493041
PMCPMC11530253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.