ArticleJRSM open2026
Mapping the evidence on the role and impact of plastics in the context of health products and their packaging: A scoping review.
Article in JRSM open, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To map the global research on the impact of plastic-based health products and their packaging across the product lifecycle in order to inform equitable, sustainable governance for the role of plastics in health products. Design: A scoping review of primary research and systematic reviews examining plastic-related outcomes in the context of health products or packaging using a systematic search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, GEOBASE and Compendex databases November 2024 with no date or language restrictions. Setting: Studies spanning global and disciplinary contexts. Participants: Primary research or systematic reviews that examined plastic-related outcomes in the context of health products or packaging. Main outcome measures: We descriptively analyzed characteristics and outcomes of the included articles according to the product lifecycle stage. Results: We screened 14,695 articles and included 572 articles published between 1960-2024. Only 8% (45/572) of articles studied more than one lifecycle stage. The evidence is otherwise siloed by focus, setting, and discipline: articles focused on clinical use and storage outcomes (266/572, 46.5%), were conducted primarily in high income countries (230/266, 86.5%) and within biomedical disciplines (207/266, 86.5%); articles focused on end-of-life outcomes (n=257/572, 44.9%) were conducted more frequently in middle-income countries (158/257, 61.7%), and within engineering and environmental sciences (208/257, 80.9%). We documented a multi-decade interest in plasticizer leaching from plastic devices and packaging. Conclusions: A research agenda that is lifecycle oriented, prevention focused, and precautionary will produce robust, actionable evidence to support treaty decision-making and implementation. We conclude with recommendations for research priorities that include interventions to reduce the use of plastics in healthcare, to measure the health and environmental impacts of the chemicals in plastics, and identification and assessment of safe, toxics-free, sustainable alternatives.
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.