SynthesisThe Canadian journal of urology2025
Green is the new gold: a systematic review of the environmental impact of urological procedures, telehealth, and conferences.
Synthesis in The Canadian journal of urology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe healthcare industry contributes nearly 5% of worldwide carbon emissions. In an effort to mitigate this impact, urology practices can take steps to reduce their carbon footprints. We conducted a systematic review which aimed to summarise the current literature on the environmental impact of urologic-related care.
methodsA systematic literature review evaluating the impact of urologic procedures, telehealth and conferences/interviews was conducted on PubMed and Cochrane databases using a Boolean search strategy and the following search terms: urology, planetary health, environmental impact, carbon emissions, carbon footprint, and waste. Full-text articles published in English were included and reviewed by two independent reviewers. The studies were grouped into three categories: surgical/procedural, telehealth, and conference/interview travel.
resultsThe initial search yielded 318 studies, of which 62 full-text manuscripts were reviewed. Of these, 22 studies met criteria for our systematic review: 13 surgical/procedural, 5 telehealth, 4 conference/interview travel. Most surgical/procedural studies compared the carbon footprint of flexible cystoscopy vs. disposable cystoscopy and found that disposable cystoscopy had a favourable environmental impact. The telehealth and conference/interview articles concluded that virtual settings significantly reduced environmental impact.
conclusionsAn increasing body of literature has evaluated the impact of urologic care on planetary health and demonstrated opportunities to minimise our carbon footprint. Incorporating changes to common procedures and considering virtual formats for clinics, conferences, and interviews-even in part-confers environmental benefits. Efforts to adopt greener and more sustainable practices in urology are necessary to mitigate the threat to planetary health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41496532What 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.