Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39579203›Full record

ArticleUrolithiasis2024

Potential impacts to human health from climate change: A comparative life-cycle assessment of single-use versus reusable devices flexible ureteroscopes.

Marlene Thöne, Jan Lask, Jörg Hennenlotter, Matthias Saar, Igor Tsaur, Arnulf Stenzl, Steffen Rausch

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Urolithiasis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. [Environmental sustainability in urology].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Micro-cost analysis of reusable compared to affordable single-use flexible ureteroscopes.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. [Critical assessment of single-use endoscopes].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
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

7 authors.

Marlene ThöneDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, D-72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Jan LaskFaculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Jörg HennenlotterDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, D-72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Matthias SaarDepartment of Urology, RWTH University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Igor TsaurDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, D-72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Arnulf StenzlDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, D-72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Steffen RauschDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, D-72076, Tübingen, Germany. Steffen.rausch@med.uni-tuebingen.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Climate change poses a significant global health challenge, with medical procedures contributing substantially to CO

Indexed as

Climate ChangeEquipment ReuseUreteroscopesCarbon DioxideDisposable EquipmentGreenhouse GasesHumansCarbon DioxideGreenhouse Gases

Identifiers

PMID39579203
PMCPMC11585494

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.