ArticleCentral European journal of urology2026
A decade of greener care: Environmental, economic, and operational impact of the virtual stone clinic in the United Kingdom.
Article in Central European journal of urology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Outpatient care generates a significant environmental footprint through patient travel, energy use, and resource consumption. As the UK healthcare sector works toward Net Zero targets, sustainable redesign of routine services is essential. This study quantifies the environmental, economic, and operational benefits of the Virtual Stone Clinic (VSC), a telephone-based follow-up model for kidney stone disease (KSD). Material and methods: We conducted a prospective study of 854 patients managed in the VSC between March 2014 and December 2024. A total of 2,917 telephone consultations were delivered. Using postcode-based travel modelling and UK standard emission factors, we calculated reductions in travel distance, CO₂ emissions, fuel use, time burden, and cost compared with equivalent face-to-face (F2F) appointments. Clinic delivery costs were estimated using NHS Reference Costs. Results: The VSC avoided an estimated 27,138 km of patient travel, reducing CO₂ emissions by 4.04-4.42 tonnes. Patients saved over 560 hours of travel time and more than £2,000 in personal fuel costs. Clinic delivery costs were £201,273 lower than for equivalent F2F care, rising to over £204,000 when patient fuel savings were included. Conclusions: Over a decade, the VSC has delivered substantial environmental, economic, and time savings without compromising safety or access. This proven model offers a scalable approach to integrating environmental accountability into outpatient care, with clear potential for adoption across urology and other specialities in the UK and beyond.
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.