SynthesisEndoscopy2026
Environmental footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy services: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Endoscopy, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is a significant contributor to health care-related climate change due to high procedure volumes, intensive decontamination processes, and reliance on single-use products. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the current evidence on the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were systematically searched up to May 2025 for studies assessing the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Results: 28 studies were included. Most studies assessed carbon emissions; only four studies (14%) examined environmental impacts beyond greenhouse gas emissions. The largest contributors to emissions were patient travel, energy use, and procedure-related products, whereas waste had limited impact. Overall, scope 3 emissions accounted for the majority of total emissions, though reporting across different emission scopes was inconsistent. In line with heterogeneity in methodology, per-procedure emissions ranged from 5.4 to 73.2 kg carbon dioxide equivalent. Overall, 21 studies (75%) were judged to have a high risk of bias. Conclusion: Current evidence on the environmental impact of GI endoscopy services is fragmented, methodologically inconsistent, and often limited in coverage. Emissions were dominated by patient travel, energy use, and procedure-related products. Broader and more standardized environmental assessments are needed to guide the transition to low-carbon, sustainable GI endoscopy.
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.