ArticleUrology research & practice2024
Uncovering the Evidence for Sustainability in Urology: A Scoping Review.
Article in Urology research & practice, 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.
- Multimodal comparison of 19 single-use flexible ureteroscopes: bench testing, operative video assessment, and surgeon ratings.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Current views on sustainability in urology: findings from the North Central Section of American Urological Association membership survey.Frontiers in urology · 2026Article
- [Digital health: a green future for healthcare?]Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Carbon footprints in the urologic field: From diagnosis to surgery.Investigative and clinical urology · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This article focuses on the environmental impact of urology devices and procedures in hospitals and identifies practices that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with urology services. Materials and Methods: A scoping review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar to find studies on the carbon footprint of urologic procedures and sustainable practices. Results: We identified 14 studies, 6 of which used life cycle assessments to compare the environmental impact of single-use and reusable urology devices. Three studies favored single-use devices, 2 favored reusable ones, and 1 found no significant difference, with the sterilization of reusable devices being a major carbon contributor. To enhance sustainability in urology, 8 articles suggested measures including day-case procedures, minimizing low-value care, drapeless cystoscopy, fluid management systems, using quick response (QR) codes in documentation, telehealth initiatives, and low-emission anesthetics. Conclusion: Promoting sustainability in healthcare requires more than just using reusable equipment; it necessitates a comprehensive approach from manufacturing to disposal, including the carbon footprint of sterilization. Encouraging low-emission anesthetics, QR codes, and telemedicine can significantly reduce emissions in urology.
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.