ReviewCureus2025
Examining the Carbon Footprint of Orthopaedic Outpatient Care and Comparing the Emissions From In-Person Versus Virtual Models of Care: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Healthcare systems are responsible for a significant proportion of global greenhouse gas emissions. Trauma and orthopaedics has an exceptionally high emission profile in comparison to other specialities. This systematic review synthesises the available literature regarding the impact of virtual care/telemedicine on the carbon footprint of outpatient orthopaedics. Nine studies, encompassing over 500,000 patients, were included following a search across major databases. Virtual care has consistently been shown to have a smaller carbon footprint than traditional in-person appointments, primarily by reducing patient travel, resulting in a median reduction of 11.8 kgCO₂e per patient interaction. Secondary benefits, such as patient cost savings and improved accessibility, were also observed. However, the certainty of evidence was low due to the risk of bias across the studies; future research should aim to directly measure patient travel and other associated emissions.
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.