ArticleAnnals of intensive care2025
Choosing wisely: comparing the carbon footprint of three respiratory sampling techniques for ventilator-associated pneumonia.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 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.
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
backgroundIntensive care units (ICU) play a significant role in healthcare global greenhouse gas emissions. Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common ICU-acquired infection, and while microbiological confirmation is essential, the optimal sampling method remains controversial. This study compares the carbon footprint of three diagnostic techniques for VAP-tracheal aspiration (TA), blind bronchial sampling (BBS) and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) using single-use bronchoscopes-while also assessing their economic cost and professional impact to support more sustainable decision-making in the ICU.
methodsThe carbon footprint of each technique was estimated using a simplified Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology via the "Carebone©" tool. Emission factors for drugs and devices were calculated. The economic costs of each procedure were also assessed. Finally, a survey of nursing staff was conducted to assess the professional impact of these techniques.
resultsTracheal aspiration had the lowest emissions (0.57 kgCO
conclusionBronchoalveolar lavage was associated with the highest carbon footprint and cost. These findings can help clinicians choose more sustainable methods for microbiological confirmation of VAP.
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.