SynthesisBMJ open2025
The carbon footprints of single-use and reusable medical devices: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quantifying the environmental footprint of primary hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and pooled-analysis of waste generation and carbon emissions.International orthopaedics · 2026Pooled it
- Role of General Practitioners in European Health Technology Assessment, EU-HTA Innovation in Oncology as an Example.Journal of market access & health policy · 2026Article
- Beyond Disposability: A Systematic Review of Reusable and Single-Use Products in Hygiene-Related Nursing Care in the ICU.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Review
- From procurement to disposal: a framework for an activity-based cost analysis of reusable and disposable trocars in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMedical devices account for approximately 6-10% of national health systems' carbon footprints. The global use of single-use devices has increased, with implications for health systems' climate impact. This systematic review aimed to synthesise global evidence on medical device carbon footprints, compare single-use and reusable devices and identify lifecycle carbon hotspots to inform policy and practice.
designWe conducted a systematic review of carbon footprints of medical devices used in clinical settings, reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE and Scopus, in 2022 and updated in 2025, and used citation tracking. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: English-language, primary research involving carbon modelling of medical devices used in clinical settings was included, with no date restrictions. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Articles were screened, and data on carbon modelling methods, device footprints and lifecycle hotspots were extracted by two independent reviewers. Findings were synthesised in figures and tables, and narratively in text. The heterogeneity in carbon modelling approaches prevented quantitative synthesis.
resultsOf 5195 articles identified, 59 met inclusion criteria. Life cycle assessment was the main carbon modelling approach, though application and data quality varied. Carbon footprints of 61 devices were assessed, primarily in surgical (16), anaesthetic (8) and endoscopic (8) specialties. Reusable devices consistently had lower lifecycle footprints. Hotspots were production and manufacturing for single-use devices and reprocessing for reusables.
conclusionReusable devices are preferable from a climate perspective, though efforts are needed to reduce reprocessing emissions. Co-ordinated interventions are required: policymakers can enable supportive regulation; manufacturers can improve device design; healthcare facilities can optimise reprocessing; and providers can prioritise reusable device procurement and use.
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.