ReviewCritical care (London, England)2025
The green ICU: how to interpret green? A multiple perspective approach.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Volatile sedation in critically ill adults undergoing mechanical ventilation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Intravenous-to-enteral drug substitution in the ICU: a single-centre analysis of the potential to reduce the environmental footprint of critical care.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Life Cycle Assessment of Impacted Tooth Surgery Under Different Clinical Scenarios.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Environmental Sustainability Profile of Intensive Care Nurses in Türkiye: A Cross-Sectional Study.Nursing in critical care · 2026Article
- Albumin-Anchored Composite Ratios of Blood Urea Nitrogen, C-Reactive Protein, Lactate, and Creatinine for Predicting Mortality in Chronically Ill Intensive Care Unit Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Green transplant: A scoping review of sustainability challenges and opportunities in transplantation.World journal of transplantation · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mitigating environmental impacts is an urgent challenge supported by (scientific) intensive care societies worldwide. However, making green choices without compromising high-quality care for critically ill patients may be challenging. The current paper describes a three-step approach towards green intensive care units. Starting with the measurement of environmental sustainability, intensive care units can identify hotspots, quantify the environmental impacts of products and procedures, and monitor sustainable progress. Subsequently, a multidisciplinary approach is proposed to improve environmental sustainability, including a collaboration of procurement specialists and healthcare professionals, using co-creation and green teams as efficient grassroots change agents. A context-specific approach for enhancing sustainable healthcare practices is key in order to fit local regulatory requirements and create support of professionals. A final step is to share results and create momentum, including publishing initiatives and participating in online (inter)national networks. Based on the core sustainability principles, this three-step approach towards green ICUs provides a valuable tool to professionals worldwide to facilitate change towards environmentally responsible intensive care units.
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.