ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2025
Stepping Stones to Sustainability Within Cancer Clinical Trials in Ireland.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 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
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
Cancer clinical trials contribute significantly to healthcare-related greenhouse gas emissions, highlighting the need to address sustainability in this area as the climate crisis intensifies. This study provides the first national assessment of sustainability awareness, attitudes, and practices within the Irish cancer clinical trials community. A 21-item cross-sectional survey was distributed to 613 cancer research professionals affiliated with Cancer Trials Ireland, including clinicians, research nurses, trial coordinators, patient advocates and industry staff, yielding a 20.6% response rate. Survey items assessed awareness of sustainability tools, perceived carbon contributors, training received, confidence in implementing green practices, and perceived barriers and enablers to sustainability. Awareness of existing carbon footprint tools was low, with only 21% familiar with the Sustainable Clinical Trials Group guidelines and fewer than 6% aware of the National Institute for Health and Care Research calculator. Despite limited training and low confidence in implementing carbon-reductive measures, 86% of respondents expressed willingness to engage with sustainability initiatives. Trial-related travel, sample kit waste, and trial set-up were perceived as the highest contributors to emissions, though perceptions did not always align with published data. Key barriers included lack of education, institutional support, and regulatory clarity, while financial incentives and training were identified as enablers. Coordinated, system-wide interventions are needed to embed sustainability into cancer clinical trial design, governance, and funding processes.
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.