ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
A Comparative Environmental Impact Analysis of Screening Tests for Colorectal Cancer.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare is a major contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions. Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is one of the most widely used healthcare services in the US, indicated for approximately 134 million adults. Recommended screening options include fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) every year, CT colonographies (CTCs) every 5 years, or colonoscopies every 10 years. We compared the environmental impacts of these tests and identified opportunities for impact reduction.
methodsWe conducted a comparative life cycle assessment of three CRC screening strategies at the University of California, San Francisco. We performed on site audits to document the materials and energy used for each screening test. We used the ReCiPe 2016 method to estimate the environmental impacts of these procedures, measured by global warming potential (GWP) and damage to human health. We estimated the 10-year cumulative impacts of each screening strategy using a Markov reward model. We accounted for model uncertainty using hierarchical Monte Carlo simulations.
findingsFIT-based screening had the lowest environmental impacts, with a roughly 20% margin of superiority over colonoscopies, and this finding was robust in sensitivity analyses. Across tests, the biggest cause of environmental harm was car-based transportation of patients and staff. Prioritizing FITs over screening colonoscopies in the US could enhance population health by roughly 5.2 million disability adjusted life years per decade. Transitioning to electric vehicles could reduce the GWP of all screening tests by 15-20%.
interpretationGiven the similar efficacy and safety of these tests, payors should prioritize FITs for low-risk patients. Government initiatives to decarbonize transportation, incentivize telehealth, and mandate environmental product declarations will help reduce the environmental impacts of healthcare more generally. Our results call for a closer look at resource-intensive preventative health strategies, which could result in more harm than good if applied to a low-risk population.
fundingNIH, UCSF.
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.