ArticleGlobal challenges (Hoboken, NJ)2025
Comparative Carbon Footprint Study of Self-Monitoring Vs. Continuous Monitoring of Blood Glucose.
Article in Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Comparative Carbon Footprint Study of Self-Monitoring Vs. Continuous Monitoring of Blood Glucose.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Climate change is an increasingly important problem, and efficient mitigation requires actions in all fields. While the impact of individual medical devices is small, the total impact of all the devices is large, and their use is also growing with the increasing elderly population. Therefore, it is urgent that this study improves knowledge of the impacts of the production and use of medical devices to find ways to decrease them. This study examines the carbon footprint of two prevalent blood glucose monitoring methods for diabetes management: self-monitoring of blood glucose and continuous glucose monitoring systems. Using cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment, the carbon footprint of six different devices across both techniques is evaluated. Components of these devices are disassembled, weighed, and the different plastic parts are chemically analyzed using Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) to accurately quantify their material composition. The results of this study show that the carbon footprint of self-monitoring devices is generally lower compared to continuous glucose monitoring devices, unless the testing frequency of the glucose level is higher than normal, or the device is used for shorter than average periods. The primary contributors to the carbon footprint of self-monitoring devices are disposable strips and lancets. Regarding the continuous method, a major part of the carbon footprint is attributed to the plastic material and the instruction leaflet. This research provides important insights for product manufacturers, policymakers, healthcare providers, and individuals with diabetes, for more environmentally conscious choices in diabetes management technologies.
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.