ArticleTrials2025
CLIMATRIAL: applicability and adaptability of a novel method to quantify the carbon footprint of a South African clinical trial.
Article in Trials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Measuring the carbon footprint of clinical research activities: a scoping review of measurement tools and methods.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Article
- Assessing the carbon footprint of French academic clinical trials using the NIHR method.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Measuring the carbon footprint of Colchicine for Long COVID - a multicenter trial from India.The journal of climate change and healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNo formal assessment of a method to measure the carbon emissions from a clinical trial has been undertaken in the low- and middle-income country setting. We aimed to evaluate the UK-based National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) method for tracking trial emissions for applicability and adaptability to the South African context. Objectives included to (1) identify gaps in trial activity data, (2) locate local emission factor sources, (3) quantify emissions and (4) investigate modifications required to ensure the method was locally applicable.
methodWe adopted an application and implementation approach. We established a formal stakeholder structure focused on sustainable clinical trials to guide and support our approach. We selected a large cluster-randomised trial of a health service delivery intervention conducted across multiple urban and rural sites as an exemplar typical of local conditions to test the NIHR method. We created a trial process map outlining ten recommended activity stages for carbon emissions and an Excel workbook to calculate emissions for each stage. We prioritised calculations of those activities for which we had the most complete data: paper usage and printing, local travel between sites, and electricity consumption at the trial head office and at trial sites. We extracted activity data from organisational financial instruments.
resultsThe study took place between December 2023 and March 2024. We identified a lack of publicly available local emission factor sources. Paper usage and printing activities took place at trial set-up and during intervention delivery and emitted 2274.88 kgCO
conclusionWe found that with minor modifications, the NIHR guidance is applicable to the SA context. It is a highly adaptable framework permitting tracking of activities across trial stages. A lack of locally available emission factors reduces accuracy and emission results should be viewed as indicative.
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.