Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40468783›Full record

ReviewBJU international2025

Perspectives on technology: All STEPS count - an integrated framework for net zero urological care.

Jamie Hyde, Eleanor King, Joseph John, Kieran O'Flynn, Ian Pearce, John McGrath, William K Gray, Manraj Phull

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BJU international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Jamie HydeGreener NHS, NHS England, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2313-0927
Eleanor KingGreener NHS, NHS England, London, UK.
Joseph JohnUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Kieran O'FlynnUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Ian PearceBritish Association of Urological Surgeons, London, UK.
John McGrathUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
William K GrayUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9597-5446
Manraj PhullGreener NHS, NHS England, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo present a narrative review of evidence to guide the delivery of high-quality, low-carbon urological care using a structured framework.

methodsAcademic and policy papers which outline actions focused on decarbonising urological care and surgical care more broadly were identified and reviewed. The 'STEPS to Low-Carbon Care' framework (an acronym for low-carbon care across 'Settings and Treatments, Efficiency, Prevention and System change') was then used to categorise and present the evidence-based decarbonisation actions, using the National Health Service in England as a case study.

resultsAcross all STEPS framework elements, tangible actions were identified alongside opportunities for future research and innovation. The evidence-based actions that were identified to transition to low-carbon care settings and treatments included tackling known carbon hotspots in operating theatres: anaesthetic gases, consumables and electricity use. Outside the operating theatre, urology pathway transformation through one-stop clinics, day-case surgery, appropriate use of virtual appointments and streamlined pathways demonstrated opportunities to reduce carbon emissions, with potential additional benefits in terms of cost, efficiencies, and patient outcome improvements. Key climate mitigation actions that support keeping people healthy were identified. There was a paucity of evidence demonstrating the implementation of climate change action as part of routine service delivery. Embedding sustainability across organisational processes and ways of working requires actions to upskill, engage and enable the workforce to deliver and to establish clinical leadership.

conclusionThis review identified a range of interventions to decarbonise urological care, whilst highlighting a need for further research. Categorising the evidence according to components of the STEPS framework indicated the potential utility of this framework when determining unrealised decarbonisation opportunities in urology and more widely across healthcare. Delivering sustained and system-wide low-carbon urological care will require the collective action of all who design, deliver and influence patient care across the specialty and all urology patient pathways.

Indexed as

Urologic Surgical ProceduresUrologyEnglandHumanscarbonemissionsenvironmentnet zerosustainabilitysustainable healthcareurology

Identifiers

PMID40468783
PMCPMC12256752

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.