ArticleEndoscopy2026
Opportunities to reduce the environmental impact of endoscopy: a detailed material flow analysis of diagnostic colonoscopy.
Article in Endoscopy, 2026. 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.
- Nursing leadership for sustainable endoscopy: a narrative review and practice framework.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
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 endoscopy is the third largest contributor to hospitals' environmental footprints. Colonoscopies, among the most frequently performed endoscopic procedures, are considered to have a significant environmental footprint, yet their exact impact is unknown. We analyzed the material flow of diagnostic colonoscopy to identify opportunities for reducing its environmental impact. Methods: A single-center material flow analysis (MFA) was conducted during a week with diagnostic colonoscopy procedures. Waste was collected, weighed, and categorized by product type. The material composition was identified. Using visual mapping, we identified which products were used and discarded at each stage of the procedure. Results: 15 diagnostic colonoscopy procedures were audited. Mean (SD) waste mass per procedure was 0.58 (0.01) kg, including an average of 46 products. Extrapolated to the hospital's annual diagnostic colonoscopies, this equals approximately 1169 kg of waste. Plastic-based products constituted the largest product category (22.7%). Nitrile made up the largest material category (14.1% of the total weight of materials). The estimated carbon footprint for the analyzed waste was 1.77 kg CO Conclusions: Plastic-based materials were the largest contributor to the total used product weight. These findings inform decision-makers in designing targeted interventions to reduce the environmental impact of diagnostic colonoscopy, for example by considering more sustainable materials such as fiber-based materials. The prepared visual map makes waste generation discussable among healthcare professionals, thereby supporting a collaborative approach to identify opportunities to improve sustainability.
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.