ArticleEndoscopy international open2025
Environmental footprint of a colonoscopy procedure: Life cycle assessment.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Environmental footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy services: a systematic review.Endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic Review: Ultrasound Goes Echo-Decarbonising Inflammatory Bowel Disease Care Through Intestinal Ultrasound.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2025Pooled it
- Environmental Impact of a Vaginal Pelvic Organ Prolapse Procedure: A Life Cycle Assessment with Scenario Modelling of Mitigation Strategies.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Intestinal Ultrasound in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Monitoring Inflammation and Treatment Response.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Review
- The Environmental Consequence of Early Colorectal Cancer Detection: A Literature Review of the Environmental Impact Assessment of Colorectal Cancer Diagnostic Pathways.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Review
- Clinical Prediction Models to Guide the Selection of Patients for Colon Capsule Endoscopy Versus Colonoscopy Following FIT-Positive Screening.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Gastroenterology is a specialty that has evolved rapidly over time, especially in terms of advancements in endoscopic procedures. However, these advancements also present challenges, given the substantial resource demands associated with endoscopy procedures. Numerous actions could be taken to develop a resilient healthcare system that consumes as few resources as possible, but recommendations are needed to prioritize which processes could be improved. We aimed to evaluate the environmental footprint of a colonoscopy procedure, and to identify the main contributing impact process categories. Methods: A single-center observational study was conducted at a Dutch university hospital. No clinical patient data were collected, but the colonoscopy procedure was studied. Data were collected during 13 colonoscopies. Life cycle assessment (LCA) was used to calculate environmental impact. Results: Damage to human health from one colonoscopy was 11.3·10 Conclusions: Among the 13 colonoscopies studied, the environmental impact was mainly attributable to transportation of patients and staff, and disposables. Therefore, raising awareness about the impact of transportation by car, and reducing resource consumption, particularly of disposable products, should be prioritized. Implementing alternatives to colonoscopy, such as intestinal ultrasound, could reduce the environmental footprint of the healthcare system.
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.