ArticleBMJ open2025
Assessing the carbon footprint of medical diagnostic testing: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A target product profile and roadmap for Japanese encephalitis diagnostics in endemic areas in the context of other flaviviruses.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe climate crisis represents an unprecedented threat to global health systems, requiring urgent decarbonisation across all healthcare sectors. Although medical diagnostics affect approximately 70% of clinical decisions, they receive disproportionately little attention in healthcare sustainability research. This knowledge gap is particularly concerning as the impact of climate change on health may increase diagnostic testing demands, potentially creating a feedback loop of environmental harm. Carbon assessment methodologies within healthcare are heterogeneous and context-specific, with varying methodologies and assumptions complicating systematic evaluation. The proposed scoping review aims to map and analyse the existing literature on medical diagnostic carbon footprints, synthesising methodological approaches, core assumptions and evidence gaps to guide future decarbonisation efforts. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and HealthcareLCA) will be systematically searched from their inception to January 2025. The search strategy will combine subject headings and text words related to (1) carbon footprint and (2) diagnostic testing of any form. Only published, peer-reviewed studies will be considered, with no exclusions made on the basis of language, location or publication date. Two independent reviewers will screen titles/abstracts and full texts, with disagreements resolved through discussion. Data will be extracted using a bespoke tool developed and piloted by the research team to capture study characteristics, methodological approaches and key findings. Narrative synthesis and descriptive quantitative analysis will be used to analyse the data. The review will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this scoping review. Our findings will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and presented at scientific conferences.
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.